- 15 -
THE COURT: All right. Do you have some reason to
believe that you’re under criminal investigation or?
MS. TAYLOR: No, I don’t. But any time that you
testify it becomes a record. And, you know, it’s not a
good idea to testify against yourself so other people
can use that. So, you know, I don’t know what would
ever happen in the future. Or it could become -- it’s
public record so I’m not going to testify against
myself. Would you?
Petitioner did not demonstrate that there was any real or
appreciable danger of self-incrimination, nor did she offer to
provide to the Court in camera any particularized basis or facts
supporting the claimed Fifth Amendment privilege. Therefore,
petitioner was not entitled to use the Fifth Amendment as a
defense to participating in the required Rule 91 stipulation
process and answering questions posed to her at trial.
III. Petitioner’s Income Tax Liability
A. Burden of Proof
In general, the Commissioner’s determination of a taxpayer’s
tax liability is presumed correct, and the taxpayer bears the
burden of proving that respondent’s determination is improper.
Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933). The
“presumption of correctness” is appropriate where respondent has
furnished evidence linking the taxpayer to the “tax generating
activity”. Gold Emporium, Inc. v. Commissioner, 910 F.2d 1374,
1378 (7th Cir. 1990), affg. Malicki v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1988-559.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011