- 4 -
tax, and requested a refund of the $3,573.81 in Federal income
tax that had been withheld. To that return, petitioner attached
a document teeming with frivolous tax-protester arguments,
including, inter alia, the following: (a) No section of the
Internal Revenue Code makes her liable for income tax; (b) no
section of the Internal Revenue Code requires that income taxes
be paid on the basis of a return; and (c) the “Privacy Act
Notice” contained in the Form 1040 booklet does not require her
to file a return. Respondent did not recognize petitioner’s
“zero return” as a valid Federal income tax return for 2004.
On May 1, 2006, respondent issued the aforementioned notice
of deficiency.5 Petitioner then filed a timely petition with
this Court. A trial was held on March 5, 2007, in Knoxville,
Tennessee.
OPINION
I. Whether Petitioner Had Unreported Income
As a general rule, the Commissioner’s determination of a
taxpayer’s liability for an income tax 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). Although section 7491(a) may shift the
5 Petitioner was allowed a standard deduction for 2004 in
the notice of deficiency. In addition, for her 2003 taxable
year, petitioner had a tax liability, which is relevant to her
liability for an addition to tax under sec. 6654(a) for the 2004
taxable year.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008