William A. Wheelis - Page 5




                                        - 5 -                                         
                                     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.”  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.                    
               Petitioner’s argument that Rule 91(f) could not be applied             
          without violating his Fifth Amendment privilege must be rejected.           
          The phrase that comes readily to mind was first used by the U.S.            
          Supreme Court in United States v. Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259, 264               
          (1927), to wit, a taxpayer may not “draw a conjurer’s circle                
          around the whole matter” of his or her tax liability.  See also             
          Steinbrecher v. Commissioner, 712 F.2d 195, 198 (5th Cir. 1983),            
          affg. T.C. Memo. 1983-12; McCoy v. Commissioner, 696 F.2d 1234              






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011