- 9 -
We conclude that there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact and that a decision may be rendered as a matter of
law.
1. Deficiency Determined in the Notice of Deficiency
Petitioner did not appear at trial. We previously ruled
that the burden of proof did not shift to respondent pursuant to
section 7491(a). Petitioner bears the burden of proof for the
deficiency determined in the notice of deficiency. See Rule
142(a). Petitioner failed to produce any evidence to rebut the
deficiency determined by respondent in the notice of deficiency.
Accordingly, we sustain respondent’s deficiency determination
contained in the notice of deficiency.3
2. Increased Deficiency
Respondent bears the burden of proof on the increased
deficiency. See id. The increased deficiency derives from
$37,019.21 in wages paid to petitioner by Enterprise Network
Sys., Inc. This amount is income to petitioner. See sec. 61.
Petitioner, as early as the amended petition, admitted
receiving this income and provided respondent a document to
support this admission. Petitioner further admitted that this
amount was not included in the notice of deficiency.
3 We note that, in the alternative, we could have dismissed
this portion of the case pursuant to Rule 123(b). Cf. White v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-459.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011