- 2 -
issues for which petitioner bears the burden of proof, this case
should be dismissed for failure to properly prosecute; (2)
whether petitioner should be held in default as to the issues on
which respondent bears the burden of production and/or proof;
namely, petitioner’s liability for increased deficiencies and for
additions to tax; and (3) whether a penalty should be awarded
under section 6673.
By separate notices of deficiency issued December 7, 1998,
respondent determined deficiencies in Federal income taxes and
additions to tax as follows:
Additions to Tax
Year Deficiency Sec.6651(a)(1) Sec.6651(a)(2) Sec.6654(a)
1994 $3,334 $745.20 $678.96 $170.49
1995 5,060 1,128.37 727.17 273.52
1996 4,652 1,025.32 387.34 244.81
Background
The relevant facts may be summarized as follows. Petitioner
resided in Gordonsville, Virginia, at the time the petition was
filed.2 The petition was filed on March 11, 1999, and Richmond,
Virginia, was designated as the place of trial. In the answer
2 It is unclear whether petitioner resided in Gordonsville,
Va., or Fort Washington, Md. In the petition petitioner shows
Gordonsville, Va., as his address; however, in his amended
petition petitioner suggests that his residence was Fort
Washington, Md. It does not appear that his residence affects
any item. For purposes of appeal, both Maryland and Virginia are
within the venue of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011