Robin T. Hardie - Page 4




                                        - 4 -                                         
          stipulated that the attachments to the stipulation of facts are             
          authentic.                                                                  
               On brief, petitioner raises two issues.  First, although he            
          concedes that it “appears” that he did not pay $106,888 for 1999,           
          and, therefore, he “[owes] the IRS this amount together with                
          accrued penalties and interest”, he does not accept that his                
          check was returned for insufficient funds.  Second, he states               
          that he does not agree with respondent’s computation of his                 
          liability (presumably $360,929.37, as of April 14, 2007) (the               
          computational issue).                                                       
               In his answering brief, respondent argues that petitioner              
          has failed to present sufficient evidence to show that Appeals              
          abused its discretion in making the determination.  Respondent              
          claims that no evidence supports petitioner’s claim that the                
          check he submitted to pay his income tax liability was not                  
          returned for insufficient funds.  Respondent further claims that            
          petitioner may not raise the computational issue because he did             
          not raise it with Appeals during his section 6330 hearing.                  
                                     Discussion                                       
               Petitioner bears the burden of proof.  See Rule 142(a).  The           
          transcript of account shows a dishonored check in the amount of             
          $106,888, and there is no evidence contradicting the inference to           
          be drawn from that entry that the check was returned for                    
          insufficient funds.  We cannot conclude that Appeals wrongfully             







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next 

Last modified: March 27, 2008