-5-
income of $106,077 and of $266. The letter also reflected an
addition to tax of $7,113.60 under section 6651(a)(1) for failure
to file timely his 1999 return and an accuracy-related penalty of
$7,113.60 under section 6662(a) and (b)(1) for negligence. On
October 24, 2001, petitioner acknowledged the receipt of
respondent’s letter. In an attachment to his response,
petitioner stated in part:
This is in reply to your letter of Oct. 15th 2001
in which you notified me that “We have changed/adjusted
your return.”
* * * * * * *
You have no legal authority to “change/adjust” my
return, nor to assess any amount other than what is
shown on my return, and if any IRS employee attempts to
do otherwise, they will do so at their own criminal
and/or civil peril.
Petitioner’s statements in the attachment are similar to the
tax protester statements contained in a letter sent by the
taxpayer in Kaye v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-74. The other
correspondence in the record between petitioner and respondent
also includes tax protester statements advanced by petitioner.
OPINION
A. Burden of Proof
Respondent’s determinations of deficiencies in the notice of
deficiency are presumed correct, and petitioner bears the burden
of proving those determinations wrong. Rule 142(a); Welch v.
Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933). Section 7491 shifts to the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011