- 5 -
Discussion
I. Deficiencies in Tax
While petitioner has assigned error to respondent’s
determinations of the deficiencies, he does not aver any facts
supporting his assignment, nor does he argue that respondent made
any mistake of law in determining the deficiencies. Petitioner
has ignored the merits of the case in favor of a defense based on
his supposition that it is respondent’s burden to prove that
petitioner had unreported income. Petitioner is wrong in that
supposition. In pertinent part, Rule 142(a)(1) provides that the
burden of proof shall be upon the petitioner, except as otherwise
provided by statute or determined by the Court. Section
7491(a)(1) places the burden of proof on the Commissioner with
respect to any factual issue relevant to determining a taxpayer’s
liability for the income tax, but the provision is of no
application unless the taxpayer first introduces credible
evidence with respect to the issue. Since petitioner has
introduced no evidence, section 7491(a)(1) is of no application
to this case. Petitioner retains the burden of proof under Rule
142(a)(1).
Nevertheless, the venue for appeal of this case is
uncertain. The petition shows petitioner’s mailing address as
being in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Petitioner would not, however,
stipulate that he resided there, agreeing only that, “at the time
he filed the petition, he was located or could be found [there].”
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011