Norman P. Schiff - Page 5




                                        - 4 -                                         
          petitioner’s taxable year 2003.  On March 16, 2005, respondent              
          issued a statutory notice of deficiency for petitioner’s taxable            
          year 2002.                                                                  
                                     Discussion                                       
          Income Tax Liabilities                                                      
               Petitioner has abandoned his position that he is not liable            
          for income taxes, for fear of imposition of frivolous argument              
          penalties.  He has conceded his liability for income taxes for              
          the years in issue.  Petitioner does, however, dispute the tax              
          due as calculated in the notices of deficiency.                             
               The Commissioner’s determination in a notice of deficiency             
          is generally presumed correct, and the taxpayer has the burden of           
          proving that the determination is erroneous.  See Rule 142(a);              
          Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933).  Under certain                
          circumstances, the burden of proof with respect to relevant                 
          factual issues may shift to the Commissioner under section                  
          7491(a).  Petitioner has neither alleged that section 7491(a)               
          applies nor established his compliance with the requirements of             
          section 7491(a)(2)(A) and (B) to substantiate items, maintain               
          records, and cooperate fully with respondent’s reasonable                   
          requests.  Therefore, the burden of proof does not shift to                 
          respondent.                                                                 
               Petitioner alleges error in respondent’s use of married                
          filing separately as his filing status for calculation of his               







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007