- 27 -
“thorough, probing, and in-depth” review of respondent’s
determinations. Petitioner’s argument is without merit.
Generally, a taxpayer bears the burden of proving the
Commissioner’s determinations incorrect. Rule 142(a)(1); Welch
v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933).15 The burden was on
petitioner to show that respondent abused his discretion. The
burden was not on respondent to provide enough information to
show that he did not abuse his discretion. Nevertheless, we find
that we had more than sufficient information to review
respondent’s determination.
3. Deadline for Submission of Information
Petitioner argues that Ms. Cochran abused her discretion by
not allowing his counsel additional time to submit information to
be considered. Petitioner’s argument is not supported by the
record.
Petitioner asserts that he was “initially only given weeks”
to provide all information. However, he ignores the fact that
Ms. Cochran granted his requested extension and allowed him until
June 1, 2004, to submit information. Additionally, petitioner
has not identified any documents or other information that he
15 While sec. 7491 shifts the burden of proof and/or the
burden of production to the Commissioner in certain
circumstances, this section is not applicable in this case
because respondent’s examination of petitioner’s returns did not
commence after July 22, 1998. See Internal Revenue Service
Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, Pub. L. 105-206, sec.
3001(c), 112 Stat. 727.
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011