David Russell Jacobson - Page 5

                                        - 5 -                                         
          trial that he did not have the “proper information” and therefore           
          could not file a tax return for 1993.  In support of that claim,            
          petitioner relied on his general, conclusory, and uncorroborated            
          testimony.  We are unwilling to rely on that testimony.  Assuming           
          arguendo that we were to accept petitioner’s testimony about why            
          he failed to file a tax return for the year at issue, the un-               
          availability of information or records does not necessarily                 
          establish reasonable cause for failure to file timely a tax                 
          return.  See Elec. & Neon, Inc. v. Commissioner, 56 T.C. 1324,              
          1342-1343 (1971), affd. without published opinion 496 F.2d 876              
          (5th Cir. 1974).  A taxpayer is required to file timely based               
          upon the best information available and to file thereafter an               
          amended return if necessary.  Estate of Vriniotis v. Commis-                
          sioner, 79 T.C. 298, 311 (1982).  On the record before us, we               
          find that petitioner has not met his burden of proving that he is           
          not liable for the year at issue for the addition to tax under              
          section 6651(a)(1).                                                         
               With respect to section 6654(a), petitioner does not dispute           
          that he did not pay estimated tax for the year at issue.  Assum-            
          ing arguendo that respondent’s examination of the year at issue             
          began after July 22, 1998, we find that respondent has satisfied            
          respondent’s burden of production under section 7491(c) with                
          respect to respondent’s determination under section 6654(a).                
               Petitioner claimed at trial that his failure to make esti-             

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011