- 7 -
under sec. 72(t).
Petitioner did not report these distributions on his
Federal income tax return for 2001. In the notice of deficiency,
respondent determined that petitioner failed to report the
distributions from Americo of $24,146. Respondent further
determined that petitioner is liable for the accuracy-related
penalty under section 6662(a) for negligence and/or substantial
understatement of income tax.
Petitioner filed a timely petition with this Court.
Paragraph 4 of the petition states:
The request is because-Funds from one IRA were
placed into another IRA. These funds although
reported to you on an 1099, were only transferred.
I believe this request should be granted, I can
provide paperwork supporting this claim.
Discussion
A. Americo Distributions
Generally, the Commissioner’s determinations are presumed
correct, and the taxpayer bears the burden of proving that those
determinations are erroneous.4 Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering,
290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933).
4 Sec. 7491(a) does not apply in this case to shift the
burden of proof to respondent because petitioner neither alleged
that sec. 7491(a) is applicable nor introduced credible evidence
with respect to any factual issue relevant to ascertaining his
income tax liability. See Higbee v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 438,
442 (2001). Sec. 6201(d) also does not apply in this case if for
no other reason than that petitioner failed to cooperate with
respondent.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011