- 9 -
On January 9, 2006, petitioners filed a motion for sanctions
against respondent. A trial was held on January 10, 2006. At
trial, petitioners presented voluminous documents that were
admitted into evidence.13 On January 24, 2006, respondent’s
response to “petitioners’” motion for sanctions against
respondent was filed with the Court.
OPINION
I. Burden of Proof
As a general rule, the Commissioner’s determination of a
deficiency is presumed correct, and the taxpayer bears the burden
of proving that the determination is improper. See Rule 142(a);
Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933). However, pursuant
12(...continued)
Mrs. Jackson’s 2001 Schedule C. Petitioners appear to have made
a mathematical error that went undetected by respondent.
According to the Court’s calculations, Mrs. Jackson’s listed
Schedule C expenses total $20,457, not $28,665.
13Many of petitioners’ documents that were admitted into
evidence were from taxable years preceding the years in issue.
Also, many documents were letters, e-mails, and questionnaires
that failed to substantiate any expenditures. Petitioners’
extensive documentation, as described on brief, included, inter
alia:
a letter of recommendation from the past owner of the
Emergi-Clinic which states that * * * [Mrs. Jackson]
had successfully attended computer classes in 1983, and
that she’d worked as a Manager and had trained staff
members. She has a letter of appreciation from Texas
Circuit (1988) for allowing her students to participate
in ‘Open Mic Night.’ Petitioner has letters from
teachers in Beaumont, and Dallas, Texas thanking her
for the programming she’d provided their students.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008