- 7 -
In view of his failure to substantiate, we hold that
petitioner is not entitled to the deductions claimed by him on
his Schedule C.
B. Addition To Tax Under Section 6651(a)(1)
Section 6651(a)(1) imposes an addition to tax for failure to
timely file a return. Whether petitioner is liable for this
addition turns on whether he timely filed his 1998 income tax
return.
Absent an extension of time to file, petitioner’s 1998
income tax return was required to be filed by Thursday, April 15,
1999. See sec. 6072(a). Because petitioner filed Form 4868,
Application for Automatic Extension of Time To File U.S.
Individual Income Tax Return, the time within which petitioner
was required to file his return was extended by 4 months.4 Thus,
the filing deadline became August 15, 1999. But because that
3(...continued)
F.3d (8th Cir. 2001). In other words, petitioner may not
avoid meeting his burden of proof by asserting that he has a
right not to testify. United States v. Rylander, supra at 761;
Traficant v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 501, 504 (1987), affd. 884
F.2d 258 (6th Cir. 1989). Indeed, in a civil case, “the Court
may draw a negative inference from facts over which petitioner
has asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-
incrimination.” Traficant v. Commissioner, supra, citing Baxter
v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308 (1976). The negative inference that
we would draw in this case is that petitioner lacks
substantiation for the deductions that he claimed on his return.
4 At trial, respondent raised no issue regarding the
timeliness of Form 4868 or whether petitioner properly estimated
his tax liability thereon. See Crocker v. Commissioner, 92 T.C.
899, 910 (1989). Accordingly, we proceed on the basis that Form
4868 was both timely filed and valid.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011