Peter Wood - Page 9

                                        - 9 -                                         
          deficiency determinations for the years at issue does not shift             
          to respondent.  On the instant record, we agree with respondent.            
          We conclude that petitioner has the burden of proving that                  
          respondent’s deficiency determinations are wrong.  Rule 142(a);             
          Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933).  Respondent,                  
          however, has the burden of proof with respect to the increase in            
          the addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1) for each of the                
          years 1996 and 1997 that respondent alleged in respondent’s                 
          amendment to answer.  Rule 142(a)(1).                                       
               At trial, the only issue about which petitioner testified              
          related to whether during each of the years at issue petitioner’s           
          sole proprietorship or Native Skies, Inc., operated a business              
          engaged in selling jewelry and certain other items.9  Petitioner            
          testified that Native Skies, Inc., and not petitioner’s sole                
          proprietorship, operated that business.  Petitioner’s testimony             
          is contrary to the matters deemed established in the instant                
          case.  We are unwilling to rely on that testimony.  The matters             
          deemed established show that during each of the years at issue              
          petitioner’s sole proprietorship, and not Native Skies, Inc.,               
          operated a business engaged in selling jewelry and certain other            
          items, such as rugs.  On the record before us, we find that                 
          petitioner has failed to carry his burden of showing that during            
          each of the years at issue petitioner’s sole proprietorship did             

               9Although the Court provided petitioner an opportunity to              
          file a brief in this case, petitioner declined to do so.                    




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011