- 3 -
additional child tax credit, the head of household filing status,
and the full amount of the earned income credit. Respondent has
since stipulated that petitioner is entitled to the three
dependency exemption deductions and the additional child tax
credit.
Petitioner bears the burden of proving that respondent’s
determination is incorrect.1 Rule 142(a). It is well
established that the Court is not bound to accept at face value
the self-serving testimony of a taxpayer or his or her close
relatives or intimates. See, e.g., Tokarski v. Commissioner, 87
T.C. 74, 77 (1986). Additionally, a taxpayer is required to
maintain permanent books of account or records sufficient to
establish the amount of his or her gross income, deductions,
credits, or other matters required to be shown on his or her tax
return. Sec. 6001; sec. 1.6001-1(a), Income Tax Regs.
Petitioner has failed to substantiate the claims set forth in his
tax return, has failed to maintain books and records of his
relevant activities, and has failed to introduce credible
evidence to support his factual allegations. Sec. 6001; sec.
1.6001-1(a), Income Tax Regs.
The first issue for decision is whether petitioner is
entitled to head of household filing status. Section 2(b)
1 Petitioner has not satisfied the requirements of sec.
7491(a); consequently, sec. 7491(a) does not shift the burden of
proof to respondent.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011