Anna E. Charlton - Page 9
- 9 -
With respect to the section 6654(a) addition to tax,
petitioner's transcripts of account indicate that she also failed
to file a return in 2001. For 2002, petitioner made one payment
of $32,000 on April 15, 2003, but had no other credits or
payments. The deficiency determined for 2002 is $27,595,308.
Petitioner's $32,000 single payment falls well short of the
estimated tax payment petitioner was required to make for 2002.
See sec. 6654(d)(1)(B)(i). In the absence of any evidence that
respondent's determination is incorrect or that a section 6654(e)
exception applies, we are satisfied that respondent has met his
burden of production under section 7491(c) with respect to the
section 6654(a) addition to tax determined in this case. See
Wheeler v. Commissioner, supra at 211-212.
We accordingly conclude that respondent's motion to dismiss
should be granted, and a decision in respondent's favor should be
limitation occasioned by respondent's concession of the sec.
6651(a)(2) addition. Because the additional amount asserted in
the amended answer is attributable solely to a computational
adjustment resulting from respondent's concession of the sec.
6651(a)(2) addition, respondent has established that petitioner
is liable for a sec. 6651(a)(1) addition to tax in an amount
greater than respondent determined in the notice of deficiency.
See Howard v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-144; cf. Lenihan v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-259 (Commissioner conceded he bore
burden of proof with respect to increase in sec. 6651(a)(1)
addition asserted in answer that was attributable to asserted
increase in deficiency).
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Last modified: November 10, 2007