- 15 -
Petitioner’s evidence consisted of the spreadsheet listing
the numbers he put on his return, a water-sewer bill and an
electric bill, which were not for 2002; and a $75 receipt stapled
to a water bill, which was for 2005. Because we have determined
that petitioner is not entitled to a deduction for the business
use of his residence, it follows that he is not entitled to a
deduction for the corresponding utilities. Accordingly,
respondent’s determination is sustained.
II. Section 6651(a)(1) Addition to Tax
Respondent determined an addition to tax under section
6651(a)(1) for 2002, asserting that petitioner failed to timely
file his Form 1040-SS. Initially, respondent has the burden of
production with respect to the addition to tax. See sec.
7491(c). Respondent satisfies his burden by coming forward with
sufficient evidence to indicate that it is appropriate to impose
the addition to tax. See Higbee v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 438,
446 (2001). Once respondent satisfies his burden, petitioner
must persuade the Court that respondent’s determination is in
error by supplying sufficient evidence of reasonable cause,
substantial authority, or a similar justification. Id.
The parties agree that petitioner did not timely file a
Form 1040-SS. Therefore, respondent has met his burden of
production. Petitioner merely testified that he was a resident
of Puerto Rico, he paid his taxes in Puerto Rico, and “everybody
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008