- 11 -
income tax. We see no need to address these frivolous arguments,
the likes of which have been addressed and uniformly rejected in
many precedents. See, e.g., Takaba v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. 285
(2002); Nestor v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 162, 167 (2002).
On the basis of the evidence in the record and petitioners’
failure to present any relevant evidence, we hold that
petitioners received taxable income from Mr. Rinn’s dental
practice in the amounts that respondent determined in the notices
of deficiency, with proper adjustments to eliminate any double
counting of the dental practice income in the computations of
petitioners’ separate deficiencies.12
III. Additions to Tax and Penalty
Under section 7491(c), the Secretary has the burden of
production in any court proceeding with respect to the liability
of any individual for any penalty, addition to tax, or additional
amount imposed by the Code. Section 7491(c) applies with respect
12 Petitioners have not alleged that respondent erred in
treating Mr. Rinn’s dental practice income as community property
income or in allocating half of it to Mrs. Rinn. We therefore
consider petitioners to have conceded these issues. See Vincent
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-345. Nor has Mrs. Rinn sought
relief from liability pursuant to sec. 66; accordingly, we deem
her to have waived any such claim. As previously noted,
respondent concedes that the dental practice income should not be
double counted in Mr. and Mrs. Rinn’s taxable incomes and that
deficiencies in petitioners’ taxes should be computed as if
petitioners had filed separate returns as married persons. We
expect the resulting downward adjustments to Mr. Rinn’s
deficiencies to be reflected in the Rule 155 computations.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011