- 5 -
$6,564, and explained that the deficiency respondent determined
was the result of: (1) Changes to petitioner’s adjusted gross
income, and (2) an additional tax applied as a result of
petitioner’s distribution from his qualified retirement plan.
In his “Petition for Redetermination of a Deficiency”,
petitioner disputed respondent’s determination because: (1) He
was not responsible for the deficiency, (2) he wanted the Court
to give him an opportunity to recalculate and resubmit his 2003
return, (3) the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) had made an error
in calculating the deficiency at issue, and (4) he should not be
responsible for the IRS’s mistake. The petition is devoid of any
factual explanation as to why petitioner requested and received
the distribution at issue in 2003.
On June 29, 2005, petitioner submitted a Form 9465,
Installment Agreement Request, before an assessment was made on
his account. On July 5, 2005, petitioner made a payment of $895.
Between November 28, 2005, and February 23, 2006, he made three
additional payments that totaled $450.
Discussion
In general, the Commissioner’s determination set forth in a
notice of deficiency is presumed correct. Welch v. Helvering,
290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933). In pertinent part, Rule 142(a)(1)
provides the general rule that the burden of proof shall be upon
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008