- 74 -
with respect to “new matter”, including increased deficiencies.
Rule 142(a)(1).
Because all of our redeterminations except fraud have been
made on the basis of the preponderance of the evidence, it is not
necessary to decide which side has the burden of proof as to any
item. See, e.g., Romann v. Commissioner, 111 T.C. 273, 285
(1998); Martin Ice Cream Co. v. Commissioner, 110 T.C. 189, 210
n.16 (1998), and cases cited therein.
Our preponderance-of-the-evidence findings as to omitted
Schedule C receipts are shown in the right-most columns of tables
7 and 8, supra. All other adjustments, whether related to
adjustments in the notices of deficiency or other matters, have
been resolved by way of concessions or stipulations.
These redeterminations, stipulations, and concessions are to
be given effect in the Rule 155 computations and will govern
whether any part of the deficiency for either of the years in
issue is not due to fraud.
To the extent that any part of the deficiency for either of
the years in issue is not due to fraud, see part IV of this
opinion.
IV. Negligence
In the notices of deficiency, respondent determined, in the
alternative to the fraud penalties under section 6663, that
Michael is liable for the negligence penalties under section
Page: Previous 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011