- 4 -
because the Department of the Treasury had refused to submit a
sworn affidavit disclosing “who made the determination of
deficiency; was it the Secretary who made the determination; if
it was not the Secretary, then who and was that person authorized
to make the determination; and by whom was that person authorized
to make the determination of deficiency.”
Petitioner bore the burden of proving the determinations by
respondent were incorrect; she did nothing to advance her
position or fulfill the burden of proof.2 In fact, when the
Court sought to elicit from her whether she might be entitled to
dependency exemptions or deductions for charitable contributions,
petitioner refused to answer, stating: “It’s not relevant. If
someone doesn’t have taxable income, why would it be relevant”.
The Court, therefore, sustains respondent on the determinations
for 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001.
2Generally, the determinations of the Commissioner in a
notice of deficiency are presumed correct, and this presumption
places the burden on the taxpayer to show that the determinations
are incorrect. Rule 142(a); INDOPCO, Inc. v. Commissioner, 503
U.S. 79, 84 (1992); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933).
Sec. 7491, under certain circumstances, alters the burden of
proof with respect to a taxpayer’s liability for taxes in court
proceedings arising in connection with examinations commencing
after July 22, 1998. Although this examination commenced after
July 22, 1998, petitioner does not satisfy the requirements of
sec. 7491(a). Not only did petitioner not produce credible
factual evidence that she was not liable for the tax, but also
she did not cooperate with respondent before trial. Therefore,
petitioner bears the burden of proof at trial.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011