-4-
OPINION
A. Respondent’s Deficiency Determinations
1. Burden of Proof
Respondent’s deficiency determinations set forth in the
notices of deficiency are presumed correct, and petitioner bears
the burden of proving them wrong. Rule 142(a); Welch v.
Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933). Section 7491 shifts to
respondent the burden of proof as to these deficiencies when the
taxpayer establishes that he or she met certain requirements. We
conclude from the record that petitioner has not met those
requirements.
2. Validity of Determinations
Petitioner alleged in his petition that he did not receive
the income reported to the Commissioner by the third parties and
that the Commissioner erred by not allowing petitioner to deduct
certain amounts provided for by law.1 We read the record to
support a contrary conclusion. Given the fact that petitioner
has never filed Federal income tax returns for the subject years,
and that he refused to cooperate with respondent in the audit of
his Federal income tax liability for those years, we consider it
proper for respondent to have determined petitioner’s unreported
1 Petitioner also alleged in his petition that his filing
status for the subject years was “Married”. Given that the
record contains no evidence to prove that petitioner was married
during those years, we sustain respondent’s determination that
petitioner’s filing status was “Single”. Rule 142(a).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011