- 11 -
issue. He refused to answer questions about whether he had a
community property or premarital agreement with his wife. He
refused to answer questions concerning who prepared the documents
filed by him in this case, which documents contained inconsistent
and frivolous claims and spurious threats, as set forth above.
Respondent called as a witness a revenue agent who explained how
respondent determined petitioner’s receipt of income from the
third-party records in the file.
Discussion
The stipulation proposed by respondent, the motion for order
to show cause, the order to show cause, and the order deeming
facts stipulated for purposes of this case were all consistent
with Rule 91. The statements made in the stipulation and the
documents attached to it were all matters “which fairly should
not be in dispute.” See Rule 91(a). Petitioner did not raise at
any time a dispute as to the factual accuracy of the stipulation.
His objections relate solely to his erroneous theory about
respondent’s burden of proof and his Fifth Amendment privilege.
Petitioner’s assertion that respondent has the burden of
proof is not a sufficient objection to a proposed stipulation.
Rule 91(a) specifically states that “The requirement of
stipulation applies under this Rule without regard to where the
burden of proof may lie with respect to the matters involved.”
See, e.g., Console v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-232.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011