Creed J. Pearson - Page 14




                                        -14-                                          
          Brooks v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2007-80.  The present case is            
          partially distinguishable because it is undisputed that                     
          petitioner filed a return for 1998, he had some tax liability in            
          1998, he made no estimated tax payments for 1999, and he had no             
          tax withheld for 1999.  Therefore, petitioner had an obligation             
          to make some amount of estimated tax payment for 1999, but he               
          failed to do so.  However, respondent produced no evidence of how           
          much tax was shown on petitioner’s return for 1998.  Without this           
          evidence we cannot ascertain whether the required annual payment            
          for 1999 is determined by the amount of petitioner’s tax                    
          liability for 1999, as respondent determined, or the amount shown           
          on his 1998 return, which could yield a much lower addition to              
          tax.  Therefore, respondent has not met his burden of producing             
          evidence that petitioner is liable for an addition to tax under             
          section 6654(a) for taxable year 1999.  See Wheeler v.                      
          Commissioner, supra; Higbee v. Commissioner, supra.                         
          Conclusion                                                                  
               In sum, we conclude that petitioner is not entitled to any             
          Schedule A itemized deductions or Schedule C business expense               
          deductions above those that respondent has conceded.  In                    
          addition, petitioner’s proposal to audit the Organization to                
          offset his income tax deficiency is not permitted by the Code.              
          Finally, petitioner is liable for additions to tax under section            








Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: March 27, 2008