Carl L. and Eugenia T. Henn - Page 8




                                        - 8 -                                         
          disallowing their claimed share of the partnership loss, $13,847.           
          Respondent determined that the amount of tax required to be shown           
          on petitioners’ return was $16,137 and that there was a                     
          deficiency of $5,124 for that year.                                         
               In the statutory notice of deficiency which provides the               
          basis for our jurisdiction in this case, respondent determined              
          that petitioners are liable for additions to tax for 1982 under             
          section 6653(a)(1) and (2) in the respective amounts of $256 and            
          50 percent of the interest due on the $5,124 deficiency.  Prior             
          to issuing the notice of deficiency, respondent did not make                
          inquiries of petitioners concerning the proposed adjustments, nor           
          did respondent provide petitioners with an opportunity for an               
          administrative appeal.                                                      
               In his answer, respondent has asserted that petitioners also           
          are liable for an addition to tax under section 6661(a) for a               
          substantial understatement of tax.                                          
                                   Discussion                                         
          Burden of Proof                                                             
               Prior to trial, petitioners moved to shift the burden of               
          production in this case pursuant to section 7491(c).  The motion            
          was denied.  In their brief, petitioners argue that respondent              
          bears the burden of proof with respect to the negligence issue              
          because respondent’s determination in the notice of deficiency              
          was determined “in an arbitrary manner.”  We need not revisit the           






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