- 10 -
charitable contributions, and the capital loss carryforward
issue. The Court later granted both parties’ motions to hold the
record open. The record was held open 4 more weeks, during which
time the parties filed a supplemental stipulation of facts.
OPINION
A. Whether the Notice of Deficiency Was Arbitrary
Petitioner contends2 that the notice of deficiency was
arbitrary. We disagree. Respondent’s determination of the
amount of petitioner’s capital gain was based on the amounts of
petitioner’s proceeds from sales of capital assets in 1998 as
reported to respondent on Forms 1099-B, Proceeds From Broker and
Barter Exchange Transactions. Petitioner does not dispute those
amounts. Petitioner failed to file a tax return for 1998 and
thus failed to report the capital transactions at issue. It was
not arbitrary for respondent to determine a deficiency based on
sale prices under these circumstances.
2 At trial, we ordered the parties to file posttrial briefs.
Respondent complied with this order; petitioner did not. Under
these circumstances, we may default petitioner on all issues for
which he bears the burden of proof. See Stringer v.
Commissioner, 84 T.C. 693, 704-708 (1985), affd. without
published opinion 789 F.2d 917 (4th Cir. 1986); Furniss v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-137; McGee v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 2000-308; Pace v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-300;
Hartman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-176. However, we decide
this case on the record as it stands. Our understanding of
petitioner’s position is based on his petition, opening
statement, and trial testimony.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011