- 22 -
income tax. Petitioner bears the burden of proving that he is
not liable for the addition to tax under section 6661. Rule
142(a). He offered no evidence or argument that he is not liable
for the addition to tax under section 6661(a). We conclude that
petitioner is liable for the section 6661(a) addition to tax for
1985 and 1986.
F. Petitioner’s Procedural Contentions
1. Whether Time To Assess Taxes Had Expired
Petitioner contends that the time to assess the taxes at
issue expired before respondent issued the notice of deficiency.
We disagree. The Commissioner may assess tax at any time if the
taxpayer files a fraudulent return or fails to file a return.
Sec. 6501(c)(1), (3). Petitioner filed fraudulent returns for
1985 and 1986, Wapnick v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-133, and
did not file a return for 1987. Thus, respondent’s notice of
deficiency is timely.
2. Summary Judgment
Petitioner contends that he is entitled to summary judgment
based on his contention that the 13 corporations are not shams,
that he had more than $3 million in bad debts in 1988, and that
he was wrongly convicted in his criminal case. We disagree.
Summary judgment is not appropriate here because material facts
are in dispute. We have found that petitioner’s 13 corporations
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011