- 6 -
information; and (3) has failed to work with respondent's counsel
to prepare this case for trial.
In her petition, petitioner does not dispute receipt of the
income determined but instead alleges that the deficiency is
attributable to respondent's failure to account for petitioner's
bases in connection with certain sales of stock. Petitioner,
however, bears the burden of proof with respect to her averments
of basis. See Waterman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1990-497.3
Petitioner has been afforded a reasonable opportunity--indeed,
multiple opportunities--to offer some proof of her claimed bases
in these proceedings. She has repeatedly failed to do so, and
the resulting default judgment is a consequence of her own
making.
In his motion to amend, respondent concedes petitioner's
liability for the section 6651(a)(2) addition to tax for failure
to pay timely. Consequently, the section 6651(c)(1) limitation
no longer applies with respect to the addition to tax under
section 6651(a)(1), resulting in a $689,883 increase in the
section 6651(a)(1) addition asserted in the amended answer.
Petitioner has failed to respond to respondent's motion to amend,
and in any event, we conclude that petitioner will not be
prejudiced if leave is granted because the amendment represents a
3 Petitioner has not claimed, nor shown entitlement to, any
shift in the burden of proof to respondent pursuant to sec.
7491(a).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007