1All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in

effect for the taxable year in issue. All Rule references are to

the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.

T.C. Memo. 1996-60

UNITED STATES TAX COURT

JAMES V. & MELINDA S. EDMISTON, Petitioners v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

Docket No. 1760-94. Filed February 15, 1996.

James V. Edmiston, pro se.

Margaret S. Rigg, for respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

DEAN, Special Trial Judge: This case was heard pursuant to

the provisions of section 7443A(b) of the Code and Rules 180,

181, and 182.1 
- 2 -

 

2Petitioners' entitlement to the "Earned Income" credit

under sec. 32 as well as their liability for the tax on selfemployment income under secs. 1401-1403 and their entitlement to

the deduction under sec. 164(f) of one-half the amount, if any,

of any self-employment tax imposed, is dependent upon our

resolution of this issue. 

Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioners' 1991

Federal income tax in the amount of $5,018 and an accuracyrelated penalty under section 6662(a) in the amount of $1,004. 

The issues for decision are: (1) Whether petitioners are

entitled to deduct for the year 1991, Schedule C expenses

totaling $27,720;2 and (2) whether petitioners are liable for the

accuracy-related penalty under section 6662 due to negligence or

disregard of rules or regulations.

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

The Stipulation of Facts and the exhibits attached thereto are

incorporated herein by reference.

Petitioners resided in Redwood City, California, at the time

the Petition was filed. Petitioners filed a joint individual

income tax return, Form 1040, for the year 1991. Attached to the

return is a Schedule C for "Edmiston Enterprises" listing total

business expenses of $27,720. 

Petitioner, Melinda S. Edmiston did not appear at trial and

did not sign the stipulation of facts in this case. Respondent

orally moved to dismiss her for failure to properly prosecute her

case. Respondent's motion will be granted.
- 3 -

We decide this case based upon the basic principle that the

burden of establishing error in the deficiency notice or

establishing claims raised in the petition or at trial rests upon

petitioner. Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115

(1933). 

Apart from the few facts that were stipulated, there is no

probative evidence in the record. Almost all of Mr. Edmiston's

testimony at trial may be characterized as tax "protester"

rhetoric. He questioned the validity of his joint individual

income tax return because of the absence of OMB (Office of

Management and Budget) numbers from Form 1040 and stated his

belief that only Federal employees are subject to Federal income

tax. We see no need to address these or similar arguments of

petitioner. See Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417 (5th Cir.

1984).

Petitioner, in response to a question by the Court, did

testify that during the year 1991 he was involved in certain

"business ventures". He testified that he was "selling land in

LA for a company named EIC" and doing "undercover work" for

banks. Petitioner further testified that he had "substantial"

expenses, connected with these activities, that he correctly

reported. At trial, however, Mr. Edmiston presented no

documentation to substantiate any of his claimed Schedule C

expenses. 
- 4 -

Petitioner has failed to carry his burden of proof and

respondent's determinations are therefore sustained.

To reflect the foregoing,

An appropriate order and

decision will be entered for

respondent.