- 12 -
him by respondent, and that had he known that the Court would
require proof of his residence in Kenosha, he would have brought
those documents with him.
The burden of refuting respondent’s determinations rests
with petitioner. Rule 142(a)(1). It is not respondent’s duty to
ensure that petitioner is aware of the evidence that he or she
may need to present before the Court. Further, petitioner
received a Standing Pretrial Notice from the Court which informed
petitioner to “organize” and “present all documents” at trial
pertinent to his case. Petitioner was aware that both his
marital status and place of residence in 2003 were at issue in
this case.11 It follows, therefore, that petitioner has not met
his burden in refuting respondent’s determination with respect to
his marital status for 2003.
Accordingly, and based on the foregoing, we hold that
petitioner is not entitled to head of household filing status for
the taxable year 2003. Respondent’s determination on this issue
is sustained.
Earned Income Credit
As previously stated, petitioner claimed an earned income
credit for 2003 with A.O.N. and A.V.N. as the qualifying
11 As grounds for review, the petitioner lists on his
petition to the Court that he “filed a true and complete tax
return” and that he and his wife “were separated” and living
apart during the year in issue.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008