- 3 -
deficiency relating to 2002. Respondent determined that
petitioner was liable for a deficiency and additions to tax for
failure to file a tax return, pursuant to section 6651(a)(1);
timely pay tax, pursuant to section 6651(a)(2); and pay estimated
income tax, pursuant to section 6654(a).
On December 19, 2005, petitioner, while residing in Hamburg,
Pennsylvania, filed his petition with the Court.
OPINION
Generally, a notice of deficiency is presumed correct, and
the taxpayer bears the burden of proving that the determination
is erroneous. Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933).
Respondent provided sufficient predicate evidence connecting
petitioner to the unreported income. Berkery v. Commissioner, 91
T.C. 179, 195 (1988). Thus, the notice of deficiency is presumed
correct, and petitioner has the burden of proof.2
Petitioner contends that the $63,850 from McClain is
attributable to DDR and that DDR is a separate legal entity from
which he received a salary. Conversely, respondent contends that
DDR does not exist, and that the $63,850 is attributable to
petitioner. There is insufficient evidence to establish the
2 Sec. 7491(a) is inapplicable because petitioner failed to
introduce credible evidence within the meaning of sec.
7491(a)(1).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007