T.C. Memo. 1999-379

UNITED STATES TAX COURT

BEVERLEE COCHRANE, Petitioner v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

Docket No. 12144-98. Filed November 16, 1999.

Beverlee Cochrane, pro se.

Rick V. Hosler, for respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

CHIECHI, Judge: Respondent determined the following deficiencies in, and additions to, petitioner’s Federal income tax

(tax):
- 2 -

1All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in

effect for the years at issue. All Rule references are to the

Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.

 Additions to Tax

 Section Section

Year Deficiency 6651(a)(1)1 6654 

1989 $1,724 $349 --- 

1990 37,975 9,494 $2,486

1991 2,462 616 141

1992 25,267 6,317 1,102

1993 812 189 --- 

The issues remaining for decision are:

(1) Have the respective periods of limitations under section

6501 expired with respect to petitioner’s taxable years 1989,

1990, 1991, and 1992? We hold they have not.

(2) Is petitioner liable for the addition to tax under

section 6651(a)(1) for each of the years 1989, 1990, 1991, and

1992? We hold that she is.

(3) Is petitioner liable for the addition to tax under

section 6654 for each of the years 1990, 1991, and 1992? We hold

that she is to the extent stated herein. 

Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. 

Petitioner, who was single during the years at issue,

resided in Phoenix, Arizona, at the time the petition was filed. 

Petitioner requested, and received, extensions of time until

August 15, 1990, and August 15, 1991, respectively, within which

to file her 1989 and 1990 tax returns and included tax payments

with those requests in the amounts of $390 and $1,128.25, respec-
- 3 -

tively. The Internal Revenue Service (Service) has no record

that petitioner filed her 1989 and 1990 tax returns on those

respective dates or on any other dates. Nor does the Service

have a record that petitioner filed tax returns for 1991, 1992,

and 1993. 

Tax was withheld in the amounts of $330 and $58 from the

wages that petitioner received during 1989 and 1993, respectively. No tax was withheld from the $18 of wages that petitioner received during each of the years 1990 and 1991. No tax

was withheld for petitioner’s taxable year 1992 because she

received no wages during that taxable year. 

On April 10, 1998, respondent sent petitioner a notice of

deficiency (notice) with respect to her taxable years 1989, 1990,

and 1991 and a separate notice with respect to her taxable years

1992 and 1993. In those notices, respondent determined, inter

alia, that petitioner had failed to file tax returns for the

years at issue, that she is liable for additions to tax under

section 6651(a)(1) for those years, and that she is liable for

additions to tax under section 6654 for her taxable years 1990,

1991, and 1992. 

Petitioner bears the burden of showing error in the determinations in the notices. See Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290

U.S. 111, 115 (1933). We reject petitioner’s argument that the

standard of proof applicable in criminal proceedings is control-
- 4 -

2Although petitioner also argues on brief about her taxable

year 1993, petitioner conceded at trial that she did not file a

tax return for that year. Therefore, we find that petitioner

also conceded that the period of limitations under sec. 6501 with

respect to petitioner’s taxable year 1993 has not expired. 

Petitioner also conceded at trial that she is liable for the

addition to tax under sec. 6651(a)(1) for 1993. Assuming arguendo that petitioner had not made the foregoing concessions with

respect to her taxable year 1993, on the record before us, we

would nonetheless find that petitioner has failed to establish

that the period of limitations under sec. 6501 with respect to

1993 has expired and that she is not liable for the addition to

tax under sec. 6651(a)(1) for that year.

ling in the instant case. 

Before addressing each of the issues remaining for decision,

we note that we have considered all of petitioner’s contentions

and arguments that are not discussed herein, and we find them to

be baseless, without merit, and/or irrelevant.

Period of Limitations

Although not pled in the petition, petitioner argues that

the respective periods of limitations under section 6501 with

respect to her taxable years 1989 through 1992 have expired.2

That is because, according to petitioner, she timely filed her

tax returns for those years, and the notices with respect to

those years were not issued until April 10, 1998. We reject

petitioner’s contention. 

Except for petitioner’s self-serving, uncorroborated, and

conclusory testimony that she timely filed her tax returns for

the years 1989 through 1992, the record is devoid of evidence

supporting petitioner’s position under section 6501. In fact,
- 5 -

3Service records also show that petitioner did not file a

tax return for 1993. See supra note 2 for petitioner’s concessions regarding 1993. 

4As we indicated supra note 2, petitioner concedes that she

is liable for the addition to tax under sec. 6651(a) for her

taxable year 1993. 

official records of the Service that are part of the record in

this case show that petitioner did not file tax returns for any

of the years 1989 through 1992.3 We are not required to, and we

shall not, accept petitioner’s testimony that she timely filed

her tax returns for those years. See Geiger v. Commissioner, 440

F.2d 688, 689 (9th Cir. 1971), affg. per curiam T.C. Memo. 1969-

159; Tokarski v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 74, 77 (1986). 

On the record before us, we find that petitioner has failed

to establish that she filed tax returns for the years 1989

through 1992. Accordingly, we hold that the respective periods

of limitations under section 6501 with respect to those years

have not expired. 

Addition to Tax for Failure to File

Section 6651(a)(1) imposes an addition to tax for failure to

file a tax return on the date prescribed for filing. That

addition to tax does not apply if it is shown that the failure to

file was due to reasonable cause, and not due to willful neglect. 

See sec. 6651(a)(1). 

Petitioner contends that she is not liable for the additions

to tax under section 6651(a) for the years 1989 through 1992.4
- 6 -

In support of her position, petitioner states, inter alia: 

Why did it take Respondent nine years to notify Petitioner that they did not have her returns on file for

the years 1989 through 1993, if, in fact, they did not

have the returns, unless Respondent, through laxity and

clerical bungling, lost track of Petitioner’s returns;

or else, deceitfully and intentionally, with malice

aforethought, submerged Petitioner’s returns and deferred contact with her, all the while tabulating

penalties and interest that would have been far less

significant had the “Total” lines been timely drawn? 

The Notice of Deficiency sent to Petitioner in January

of 1998 clearly witnesses that the potential for stunning penalties and interest is increased proportionate

to the delay in notification * * * . 

 * * * * * * * 

If the IRS is allowed to collect monies for alleged

“unfiled” returns from 10 years past, when taxpayers

are only required to keep them for three, what’s to

stop them from seeking to collect for returns they

claim to have no record of that date back 20 years, or

more? The taxpayer should have some means of protecting him-or herself from the burden of filing proof when

the date of notification exceeds the requirement date

for keeping such return. If Respondent can’t keep

track of a taxpayer in this high-tech age, when everything about everyone is easily knowable and privacy

rights are flagrantly violated by legions of both

professional and personal snoops-–many of them employed

by Respondent * * * , then Respondent deserves to lose

any revenue that would accrue from its assessments,

whether taxpayer has proof of filing or not. If Respondent deliberately defers contact with a taxpayer in

order to subsequently collect greater penalties and

interest, then this would constitute not only malicious

intent, but fraud. 

* * * * * * *

It is convenient-–and necessary, in the absence of

proof--for Respondent to assert that Petitioner did not

file taxes for the years 1989 through 1993, though it

is impossible to prove such assertion. In fact, Petitioner would not dare willfully omit a filing, in view

of the harassment visited upon her by Respondent in
- 7 -

years when her returns did not bear the signature of a

professional preparer. The provisions of Section 6651

cannot even apply to Petitioner because Petitioner did,

in fact, file her returns, and Respondent has offered

no proof to the contrary, nor can it. If the burden of

proof rests with Petitioner, there is a standoff, and

the case should be dismissed. 

We find petitioner’s contentions and arguments under section

6651(a)(1) to be baseless, without merit, and/or irrelevant. On

the record before us, we find that petitioner has not shown that

her failure to file tax returns for her taxable years 1989

through 1992 was due to reasonable cause, and not to willful

neglect. Consequently, we sustain respondent’s determinations

that petitioner is liable for additions to tax under section

6651(a)(1) for those years. 

Addition to Tax for Failure to Pay Estimated Tax

Section 6654(a) imposes an addition to tax for failure to

pay estimated tax. The addition to tax under section 6654(a) is

mandatory unless the taxpayer establishes that one of the exceptions in section 6654(e) applies. See Grosshandler v. Commissioner, 75 T.C. 1, 20-21 (1980). 

Petitioner contends that she is not liable for the additions

to tax under section 6654(a) for the years 1990 through 1992. In

support of that contention, petitioner argues:

in 1990, Petitioner prepaid over 100% of the estimated

taxes owed in 1989; thus, no further estimated payments

were required and no penalty was due therefor in 1990. 

In 1991, no tax was due; thus, no estimated tax payment

was required in 1992. No estimated taxes were required

to be paid from 1989 through 1993. Exceptions to the
- 8 -

underpayment penalty under §6654(e)(2), apply for 1990

and 1992.

Section 6654(e) provides in pertinent part: 

(e) Exceptions.--

(1) Where tax is small amount.--No addition to tax

shall be imposed under subsection (a) for any taxable

year if the tax shown on the return for such taxable

year (or, if no return is filed, the tax), reduced by

the credit allowable under section 31, is less than

$500.

(2) Where no tax liability for preceding taxable

year.-–No addition to tax shall be imposed under subsection (a) for any taxable year if–-

(A) the preceding taxable year was a taxable

year of 12 months, 

(B) the individual did not have any liability

for tax for the preceding taxable year, and 

(C) the individual was a citizen or resident

of the United States throughout the preceding

taxable year.

The parties made various concessions at trial as well as in

the stipulation of facts and the supplemental stipulation of

facts filed in this case. Consequently, computations under Rule

155 will be necessary. On the present record, we find that

petitioner is liable for the additions to tax under section

6654(a) for 1990, 1991, and 1992 except to the extent that the

Rule 155 computations in this case establish that the exception

provided in either section 6654(e)(1) or section 6654(e)(2)

applies for any such year. 

To reflect the foregoing and the concessions of the parties, 

Decision will be 

entered under Rule 155.