- 11 -
relating to the liability of the taxpayer for a tax imposed under
subtitle A or B of the Code.
Petitioners failed to appear and did not introduce any
evidence. Therefore, we conclude that the burden of proof is not
placed on respondent pursuant to section 7491(a). Accordingly,
we sustain respondent’s deficiency determination regarding the
Wards, and we shall dismiss the case with regard to the
deficiencies in docket No. 10598-00 and enter a decision against
the Wards for those amounts. Rules 123(b), 142(a); Welch v.
Helvering, supra at 115.
In the motions to dismiss in the trust cases, respondent
stated that he took protective, inconsistent positions against
the trusts and the Wards. Respondent concedes that if we find
the Wards liable for the deficiencies in their case, then there
are no deficiencies in the trust cases. Accordingly, we shall
enter appropriate orders and decisions based on respondent’s
concession.
II. Summary Judgment
Respondent moved for partial summary judgment in the Wards’
case on the issue of whether he met his burden of production with
respect to the imposition of the accuracy-related penalty.
Rule 121(a) provides that either party may move for summary
judgment upon all or any part of the legal issues in controversy.
Full or partial summary judgment may be granted only if it is
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011