Gerry M. Griggs - Page 6

                                        - 5 -                                         
          beginning of trial, petitioner produced a Form 1040X, Amended               
          U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, for 2001 that he stated he               
          wanted to “file”.  The document was received into evidence over             
          the objection of respondent’s counsel.                                      
               Petitioner also attempted to introduce into evidence a stack           
          of miscellaneous receipts, reports, checks, statements,                     
          handwritten notations, invoices, and other documents.                       
          Respondent’s counsel was able to determine that the documents had           
          not been provided to her on August 31, 2005, in response to the             
          Court’s order compelling production.  Respondent’s counsel                  
          objected to the introduction into evidence of any document                  
          petitioner had not produced by August 31, 2005.  The Court                  
          sustained the objection of respondent’s counsel.                            
                                     Discussion                                       
               Petitioner has made no argument that the burden of proof               
          shifting provisions of section 7491(a)(1) apply to this case, nor           
          has he offered any evidence that he has complied with the                   
          requirements of section 7491(a)(2).                                         
          Itemized Deductions                                                         
               Among the documents that petitioner provided to respondent             
          in response to the August 4, 2005, order was a copy of a Schedule           
          A, Itemized Deductions, for 2001.  In addition to the Schedule A            
          deductions allowed by respondent, petitioner argues that he is              
          entitled to deductions for “points” from a mortgage refinancing,            






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011