- 22 -
the requirements of section 7491(a)(2), we find that the burden
of proof does not shift to respondent pursuant to section
7491(a)(1). However, as explained infra, respondent has the
burden of proving fraud for purposes of the section 6663 penalty
and the section 6501(c) exception to the 3-year statute of
limitations for assessment.12
II. 1989--Statute of Limitations
Petitioner argues that respondent assessed the 1989
deficiency after the period of limitations had expired.
Specifically, with respect to the 1989 taxable year, petitioner
argues on brief that “The assessments for 1989 were not within 3
yrs next to the year of investigation. The Internal Revenue
Service assessment date were [sic] June 28, 1999”.
Respondent argues that “Petitioner did not dispute the
deficiency for tax year 1989 in his petition”. We disagree.
Petitioner was not represented by counsel. His petitions are not
models of clarity. However, it seems to us that the best reading
is that he was contesting respondent’s deficiency determinations
for all years in the notice of deficiency. The petition in
docket No. 15557-99 was filed using a preprinted Government form.
Paragraph 3 of the form had space for listing only 3 years of
disputed deficiencies. In paragraph 3 of his petition filed in
12 The Commissioner bears the burden of proving fraud by
clear and convincing evidence. Secs. 7454(a), 7491(c); Rule
142(b).
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011