Eryck C. Aston - Page 3

                                        - 3 -                                         
          Both pages of the Form 1040A were stamped “under duress” and                
          “without prejudice”.  Petitioner attached 30 pages to the Form              
          1040A reciting statements, contentions, and arguments that the              
          Court finds to be frivolous and/or groundless.                              
                                       OPINION                                        
          I.   The Deficiency                                                         
               As a general rule, the taxpayer bears the burden of proving            
          the Commissioner’s deficiency determinations incorrect.  Rule               
          142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933).  Section              
          7491(a), however, provides that if a taxpayer introduces credible           
          evidence and meets certain other prerequisites, the Commissioner            
          shall bear the burden of proof with respect to factual issues               
          relating to the liability of the taxpayer for a tax imposed under           
          subtitle A or B of the Code.                                                
               We found petitioner’s testimony to be evasive, vague,                  
          conclusory, and/or questionable.  Petitioner introduced no                  
          credible evidence regarding his income for 1999, and he                     
          introduced no evidence to establish that he met the prerequisites           
          of section 7491(a).2  Accordingly, petitioner bears the burden of           


               2  The documentary evidence the Court received from                    
          petitioner at trial consisted of:  (1) A letter from respondent             
          to petitioner regarding respondent’s making third party contacts,           
          (2) documents regarding the seizure of property from petitioner,            
          (3) documents regarding the alleged theft of property from                  
          petitioner by his ex-wife, and (4) a 12-page letter from                    
          petitioner to respondent containing numerous frivolous and                  
          groundless arguments regarding why he was not subject to Federal            
          income tax.                                                                 




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011