- 8 -
copies of paychecks endorsed and deposited by petitioner), as
well as declarations under penalties of perjury and supporting
business records from petitioner’s previous employers and other
payers. Respondent has met any burden that he has under the
Weimerskirch line of cases, and we are left with petitioner’s
having failed to substantiate his assignment of error, which, in
the usual case, would allow us to decide the issue in
respondent’s favor. See, e.g., Funk v. Commissioner, 123 T.C.
213, 215-216 (2004).
That does not conclude the matter of the deficiencies,
however, since in his posttrial memorandum, respondent states
that documents subpoenaed for purposes of the trial show that
petitioner wrote checks in 1998 totaling $25,000 that would give
him bases to be applied against amounts realized in 1999 on the
liquidation of certain investment accounts. Respondent concedes
that, as a consequence of that application of basis, respondent
must reduce his adjustment on account of capital gain income for
1999 by an equal amount. Respondent asks us to sustain his
determination of a deficiency for 1999, nevertheless, on the
3(...continued)
respondent had no obligation to do so, since petitioner has
asserted no reasonable dispute with respect to those items nor
has petitioner fully cooperated with respondent. See sec.
6201(d) (describing the Secretary’s burden to produce reasonable
and probative information in addition to the information reported
in the information returns when the taxpayer asserts a reasonable
dispute with that information and has cooperated with the
Secretary).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011