- 2 - Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioners’ 1998 Federal income tax in the amount of $16,353, together with a penalty under section 6662(a) in the amount of $3,271. After concessions by respondent, the issues this Court must decide are whether petitioners proved that respondent’s determination was incorrect, and whether petitioners are liable for the accuracy- related penalty under section 6662(a). Some of the facts in this case have been stipulated and are so found. Petitioners resided in Fresno, California, at the time they filed their petition. Their petition is replete with tax protester type arguments. Petitioners filed a statement, which has as its core thesis that this case should be: dismissed for lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction on the grounds that the Notice of Deficiency issued by respondent was issued on hearsay facts and evidence. Petitioner demands that respondent provide certified facts or evidence of a statutory correct assessment or tax liability to support any claimed deficiency. Lacking a statutory correct assessment or tax liability the notice of deficiency is null and void and this court does not have Subject Mater Jurisdiction. Respondent made a number of determinations which are described in pertinent part below. Respondent determined that the BVE and Sweetbush Business Trusts, purportedly created by petitioners, are shams with no economic substance and increased petitioners’ business income by the gross receipts of the trusts, less ordinary and necessary business expenses. Respondent also determined gross income from Sweetbush Trust bank deposits (thePage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011