- 4 -
1999 (the additions to tax) other than any assignment that can be
implied from his objections to respondent’s “numbers”.
Petitioner did not appear in person for the trial of this
case, but he was represented by counsel, who neither called any
witnesses nor otherwise offered admissible evidence on
petitioner’s behalf. Instead, petitioner’s counsel filed
petitioner’s memorandum on burden of proof, setting forth
petitioner’s argument that, since this case involves unreported
income, respondent bears the burden of proving receipt of that
income. Beyond that, petitioner’s counsel did object to exhibits
offered by respondent, which objections, for the most part, were
overruled.1 At the conclusion of the trial, the Court discussed
with petitioner’s counsel the issues that needed to be decided in
this case. In response to the Court’s question as to whether it
would be fair to say that, if the Court were to conclude that
respondent had shown sources for the alleged items of unreported
income, the Court should sustain the determinations of
deficiencies and additions to tax, petitioner’s counsel agreed
that would be a logical conclusion.
1 The Court reserved its ruling on petitioner’s objections
to two exhibits offered by respondent, Exs. 13-R and 19-R, and
ordered petitioner to file a memorandum in support of his
objections within 10 days of the end of the trial. Petitioner
failed to file the ordered memorandum, and the Court interprets
that failure as petitioner’s concession that his objections are
without merit. We shall issue an appropriate order.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011