- 12 -
of fact, prepared primarily by petitioner’s counsel, was filed,
subject to numerous objections to many exhibits by respondent on
relevance, hearsay, authentication, or lack of foundation
grounds, almost 4 months after the first day of trial.
Before trial, in petitioner’s trial memorandum, and during
the first day of trial, petitioner made two additional claims:
That the statutory notice of deficiency was invalid because the
wholesale disallowance of deductions amounted to a lack of
determination, the “Scar” issue; and that the Internal Revenue
Service is not an agency of the U.S. Government, the “Agency”
issue.
At the beginning of the second day of trial, petitioner,
through his counsel, made two oral motions: (1) To shift the
burden of proof to respondent under section 7491(a), claiming
that petitioner had cooperated at all levels; and (2) for
imposition of a penalty on respondent under section 6673(a)(1),
on the ground that respondent, by not offering petitioner an
Appeals Office conference prior to issuance of the statutory
notice, had deprived petitioner of administrative remedies.
During both trial days, petitioner continued to claim that
the trusts were valid for Federal income tax purposes. The first
day of trial dealt primarily with the validity of the trusts and
events occurring during the audit. These subjects were also
covered during the second day of trial in the cross-examination
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011