- 7 -
calendar call for the Alaska trial session and enclosing a
proposed stipulation of facts.
On this same date, via a written order, the Court denied
petitioner’s motion to continue, took respondent’s motion to
dismiss and motion for sanctions under advisement, and ordered
petitioner to reply to respondent’s aforementioned motions on or
before July 25, 2001. The Court has not received any reply from
petitioner.
Discussion
I. Rule 123(b). Dismissal
The Court may dismiss a case and enter a decision against a
taxpayer for his failure properly to prosecute or to comply with
the Rules of this Court. Rule 123(b). Rule 123(b) generally
applies in situations where the taxpayer bears the burden of
proof. Respondent, in the motion to dismiss, represented that he
has the burden of production regarding the penalty and the burden
of proof only with respect to the request for an increased
deficiency. Sec. 7491(a), (c); rule 142(a).
A. The Deficiencies
As a general rule, the taxpayer bears the burden of proving
the Commissioner's deficiency determinations incorrect. Rule
142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933). Section
7491(a), however, provides that if a taxpayer introduces credible
evidence and meets certain other prerequisites, the Commissioner
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011