-4-
Respondent issued a notice of deficiency on July 30, 2003,
to petitioner for taxable year 2001, determining the deficiency,
an addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1) for failure to timely
file a return, and an addition to tax for failure to pay
estimated income taxes under section 6654. Petitioner timely
filed a petition for review with this Court. As explained
previously, the parties resolved all issues other than whether
petitioner is liable for the late filing addition to tax under
section 6651(a)(1).
OPINION
Petitioner argues that his 1040 document constitutes a
return under precedent in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit and that he should not be penalized for asking for an
explanation why he was liable to file a return and pay the tax.
Petitioner further argues that even if his 1040 document does not
constitute a “return”, petitioner’s failure to file a return was
due to reasonable cause and not to willful neglect. Respondent
argues that petitioner’s 1040 document was not a return. We
shall address each of these arguments in turn.
We begin with the burden of proof. Respondent bears the
burden of production with respect to additions to tax. Sec.
7491(c); Higbee v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 438, 446 (2001). Once
respondent has come forward with sufficient evidence indicating
it is appropriate to impose the relevant penalty, the burden of
proof shifts to petitioner to introduce evidence sufficient to
persuade the Court that petitioner’s failure to file was due to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011