- 6 -
We turn next to Mr. Dimon’s claim that he is entitled to the
deductions claimed in Schedule C of the unfiled Form 1040 for
1996 that petitioners provided to respondent on January 10, 2002.
To support that claim, Mr. Dimon relies on his general, conclu-
sory, and uncorroborated testimony that he incurred the Schedule
C expenses at issue and is entitled to deduct them. We are not
required to, and we shall not, rely on that testimony. On the
record before us, we find that Mr. Dimon has failed to satisfy
his burden of establishing that he is entitled to any of the
deductions at issue.
We turn finally to the additions to tax under sections
6651(a)(1) and 6654 that respondent determined in the respective
notices issued to Ms. Dimon and Mr. Dimon. Respondent concedes
that respondent has the burden of production under section
7491(c) with respect to those additions to tax and contends that
respondent has satisfied that burden. On the record before us,
5(...continued)
amount of her unreported 1996 wages and increased Mr. Dimon’s
income for that year by one half of that amount, which respondent
determined to be community income. Petitioners do not dispute
that the $127,970 that Mr. Dimon received and the total wages
that Ms. Dimon received during 1996 constitute community income.
In the respective Rule 155 computations in these cases, the
parties shall calculate the respective amounts of income of Ms.
Dimon and Mr. Dimon for 1996 so that only one half of any commu-
nity income is included in each such petitioner’s income for that
year. See United States v. Mitchell, 403 U.S. 190 (1971); Shea
v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 183, 189-190 (1999).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011