- 4 -
In due course, an Appeals officer sent petitioner a letter
scheduling a conference and requested documentation to
substantiate the claimed Schedule A itemized deductions for 2002.
Petitioner telephoned the Appeals officer on the scheduled date
to reschedule the conference to a later date. Petitioner failed
to appear for the rescheduled conference, and he did not respond
to the request for documentation to support his claimed itemized
deductions.
Thereafter, petitioner was issued a letter for another
conference. Respondent again requested that petitioner provide
documentation to substantiate his Schedule A itemized deductions
for the year at issue. Petitioner telephoned respondent to
change the appointment to a subsequent date. Petitioner appeared
at the later conference but did not provide any of the requested
documentation. Moreover, as noted earlier, petitioner did not
cooperate in the preparation of a stipulation of facts to present
to the Court at commencement of the trial.
In general, the Commissioner’s determinations in a notice of
deficiency are presumed correct. Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S.
111, 115 (1933). In pertinent part, Rule 142(a)(1) provides the
general rule that “The burden of proof shall be upon the
petitioner”. In certain circumstances, however, if the taxpayer
introduces credible evidence with respect to any factual issue
relevant to ascertaining the proper tax liability, section 7491
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011