-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 thePage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011