Dora Margaret Benson - Page 5




                                        - 4 -                                         
               In 2002 and 2003, petitioner’s Schedules C showed combined             
          expenses of $55,301 and gross receipts of $445.  Respondent                 
          denied expense deductions beyond the gross receipts earned.                 
                                     Discussion                                       
         I.  The Burden of Proof                                                      
              Generally, the Commissioner’s determinations are presumed               
         correct, and the taxpayer bears the burden of proving those                  
         determinations wrong.  Rule 142(a); INDOPCO, Inc. v Commissioner,            
         503 U.S. 79, 84 (1992); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115                
         (1933).  Under section 7491, the burden of proof may shift from              
         the taxpayer to the Commissioner if the taxpayer produces                    
         credible evidence with respect to any factual issue relevant to              
         ascertaining the taxpayer’s tax liability.  Sec. 7491(a)(1).  In             
         this case there is no such shift because petitioner neither                  
         alleged that section 7491 was applicable nor established that she            
         fully complied with the requirements of section 7491(a)(2).  The             
         burden of proof remains on petitioner.                                       
         II.  The Period of Limitations                                               
              Petitioner expressed concern in her petition that the period            

              3(...continued)                                                         
          Benson Exposition, Inc. has not filed a corporate return since              
          its inception.  Although there is some confusion as to whether              
          the activities in this case were conducted by Benson Exposition,            
          Inc., or by petitioner herself doing business as Lila Osborne               
          Memorial, the analysis remains the same.  See sec. 1.183-1(f),              
          Income Tax Regs. (explaining that a taxpayer’s intent is                    
          attributable to his or her wholly owned S corporation); see also            
          sec. 1.183-1(d)(1), Income Tax Regs.                                        






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

Last modified: March 27, 2008