Charles C. Jones - Page 3

                                        - 3 -                                         
          notice of deficiency (notice)4 with respect to his taxable year             
          1999.  In that notice, respondent determined that for 1999                  
          petitioner had unreported wage income of $44,976, unreported                
          capital gain income of $6,344 from the disposition of stock,                
          unreported interest income of $66, and unreported dividend income           
          of $31.  Respondent also determined in the notice that peti-                
          tioner’s filing status for 1999 was married filing separate.  In            
          addition, respondent determined in the notice that petitioner is            
          liable for 1999 for the accuracy-related penalty under section              
          6662(a) because of (1) negligence or disregard of rules or                  
          regulations or (2) a substantial understatement of tax.                     
                                     Discussion                                       
               The Court may grant summary judgment where there is no                 
          genuine issue of material fact and a decision may be rendered as            
          a matter of law.  Rule 121(b); Sundstrand Corp. v. Commissioner,            
          98 T.C. 518, 520 (1992), affd. 17 F.3d 965 (7th Cir. 1994).  We             
          conclude that there are no genuine issues of material fact                  
          regarding the questions raised in respondent’s motion.                      
               Petitioner does not point to any credible evidence with                
          respect to any factual issue relevant to ascertaining whether the           
          determinations in the notice are erroneous.  We conclude that               
          petitioner has the burden of proving that those determinations              


               4The parties agree that the notice incorrectly indicated               
          that petitioner was in bankruptcy on the date respondent issued             
          that notice.                                                                




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011