- 5 -
did not assign any error as required by Rule 34(b)(4)5 to
respondent’s determinations that petitioner received income from
a retirement distribution,6 interest, or dividends during 2003.7
With respect to the additions to tax respondent determined,
petitioner prayed in his petition that this Court find that “The
Petitioner is not liable for any determination of penalties
and/or interest in the notice of deficiency” and that “The
Petitioner is not liable for a penalty at 26 U.S.C. � 6654.”
At a pretrial conference held on April 17, 2006, we warned
petitioner several times that he had not raised any nonfrivolous
issue regarding respondent’s deficiency determination and that,
should he continue with similar arguments at trial, we would
consider imposing a penalty under section 6673. At trial,
respondent moved for the imposition of a penalty under section
5Rule 34(b)(4) provides that a petition shall contain clear
and concise assignments of each and every error which the
petitioner alleges that the Commissioner made in the
determination of the deficiency. Rule 34(b)(4) further provides
that “Any issue not raised in the assignments of error shall be
deemed to be conceded.”
6In his pretrial memorandum and at trial, petitioner
conceded that he received military retirement payments during
2003 in the amount determined in the notice of deficiency.
7Petitioner did not specifically assign error to the income
adjustments involving interest and dividends, and he did not
contest these adjustments at trial. Consequently, we conclude
that petitioner has conceded these adjustments. See, e.g., Rule
34(b)(4); Derksen v. Commissioner, 84 T.C. 355, 360 (1985).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011