- 3 -
dated October 24, 1998, the Social Security Administration
brought the error to Exabyte’s attention and petitioner’s Social
Security number was corrected.
Respondent determined that petitioner failed to file Form
1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, for the years 1995,
1996, and 1997 and issued a notice of deficiency for each of
these years. Petitioner filed a timely petition for
redetermination with the Court of the 3 years at issue.2
Petitioner alleges in his petition that it is “unthinkable”
for respondent “to ‘wake’ up 8 years later and lay this undue
burden of proof on [him]” to show that the taxes, interest, and
additions to taxes assessed against him are improper. Petitioner
is not contesting the amount of income reported on the Forms W-2.
2Rule 34(b)(7) requires that a petition must be signed by
either petitioner or petitioner’s counsel. In this case,
petitioner failed to sign his petition, which may be a ground for
dismissal of the case under Rule 34(a)(1). The Court has been
liberal in treating as a petition any document filed by a
taxpayer within the 90-day period, if it was intended as a
petition. O’Neil v. Commissioner, 66 T.C. 105, 107 (1976);
Truskowsky v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1988-319. To be deemed a
petition, the document must contain some objective indication
that the petitioner contests the deficiency determined by the
Commissioner against him. O’Neil v. Commissioner, supra;
Truskowsky v. Commissioner, supra. If such documents do not
comply with the form and content requirements for petitions, the
Court is liberal in allowing the taxpayer to file an amended
petition to correct the technical defects. O’Neil v.
Commissioner, supra; Truskowsky v. Commissioner, supra.
Petitioner intended to contest and has actually contested the
1995, 1996, and 1997 deficiencies determined against him.
Therefore, the petition conferred jurisdiction upon the Court for
those taxable years.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011