- 6 -
credit, and (5) the additional child tax credit.
In Ms. Wus’s tax return for her taxable year 2003, Ms. Wus
also claimed a dependency exemption deduction for her daughter A.
OPINION
Respondent, and not petitioner, addresses whether the burden
of proof should shift to respondent under section 7491(a).
Respondent argues that that burden should not shift because
“Petitioner has not provided sufficient credible evidence nor
maintained all required records to substantiate his claims.” On
the record before us, we agree with respondent. See sec.
7491(a)(1) and (a)(2)(A) and (B). We conclude that petitioner
has the burden of proof with respect to each of the issues
presented in this case. Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290
U.S. 111, 115 (1933). Thus, petitioner has the burden of estab-
lishing that he is entitled for his taxable year 2003 to a
dependency exemption deduction for his daughter A, head of
household filing status, the earned income tax credit, the child
tax credit, and the additional child tax credit.
In support of his position with respect to each of the
issues presented in this case, petitioner relies on his own
testimony, the testimony of his mother, and the testimony of Ms.
Srase, a longtime family friend who used to babysit petitioner
when he was a child. We found the testimony of petitioner to be
in material respects conclusory, vague, self-serving, and uncor-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011