- 14 -
Petitioner’s request for a copy of the notice of deficiency
from the IRS was received by the Taxpayer Advocate Service (TAS)
on July 23, 2004. A copy of the notice of deficiency was
provided by the TAS in Laguna Niguel, California, and was
attached to a letter to petitioner dated July 28, 2004. The
letter was addressed to petitioner’s Round Rock, Texas, address.
Petitioner petitioned timely this Court on September 8, 2004.
Petitioner stated on the petition his requests for relief and his
supporting reasons as follows:
Deductions taken for employee mileage allowable as a
Schedule A deduction; deductions taken for business
mileage allowable as a Schedule C deduction; legal fees
and costs are allowable as a deductible [sic] under
I.R.C. Sections 212(1), 212(3), 216 and 262. Further,
Commissioner acted in violation of multiple sections of
Title 26 USC as well as its own I.R.C. when it
deliberately failed to complete its audit of
petitioner’s tax return; deliberately failed to
consider any of the documents petitioner timely
submitted to substantiate his personal, employee and
business deductions; deliberately sent audit
correspondence to an address it knew was improper so as
to prevent petitioner from exercising his right to an
administrative appeal hearing; deliberately sent the
statutory 90-day notice to an address it knew it was
improper thereby denying petitioner proper notice of
the alleged deficiency; and falsified documents to make
it appear notice was proper.
OPINION
I. Burden of Proof
As a general rule, the Commissioner’s determination of a
taxpayer’s liability is presumed correct, and the taxpayer bears
the burden of proving that the determination is improper. See
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007