TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Marcus C. Seay
Docket Number: 6636-07
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 05/06/2008
Pages: 4

UNITED STATES TA Washington, D. C. COURT 021 7 MARCUS C . SEAY, Petitione r V . Docket No . 6636-0 7 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent . RECORDED SERVICE CAL . STAT . JUDGE L,J . s~ O FILE S O R D E R Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Cou~t Rules of Practice and Procedure, it i s ORDERED that the Clerk of the Co herewith to petitioner and to respond of the transcript of the trial of the Thomas B . Wells at Columbia, South Ca containing his oral findings of fact the conclusion of trial . art shall transmi t nt a copy of the pages above case before Judge olina, on March 21, 2008, nd opinion rendered a t In accordance with the oral find sings of fact and opinion , decision will be entered for respondent . (Signed) Thomas B. Wells Judge Dated : Washington, D . C . May 6, 2008 SERVED MAY - 7 2008 2 1 Bench Opinion by Judge Thomas B . Wells 2 March 21, 200 8 3 Seay v . Commissioner Docket No . 6636-0 7 4 THE COURT : The Colrt has decided to render 5 oral findings of fact and opinion in this case and the 6 following represents the Cou~t's oral findings of fact 7 and opinion . The oral findi s of fact and opinion 8 shall not be relied upon as p ecedent in any other 9 case . 10 This is the case of Marcus C . Seay , 11 Petitioner, versus Commissioner of Internal Revenue , 12 Respondent, docket number 663 -07 . This bench opinio n 13 is made pursuant to the authority granted by Sectio n 14 7459(d) and Rule 152 . 15 All section references are to the Internal 16 Revenue Code as in effect for (the year in issue, and 17 all rule references are to the Tax Court Rules o f 18 Practice and Procedure . 19 Respondent determined a deficiency against 20 Petitioner for his 2003 taxabl year in the amount of 21 $106,562 and additions to tax under 6651(a)(1) in the 22 amount of $23,976 .45 ; Section 6651(a)(2) in the amount 23 of $15,984 .30 ; and Section 6654(a) in the amount o f 24 $2,749 .60 ; and for his 2004 taxable year, a deficienc y 25 in the amount of $140,53, and additions to tax unde r S Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 3 1 Section 6651(a)(1) in the amount of $31,624 .42 ; 2 Section 6651(a)(2) in the amount of $12,649 .77 ; an d 3 Section 6654(a) in the amoun of $4,027 .66 . 4 Some of the facts ave been deeme d 5 established by order of this Court pursuant to Rul e 6 91(f) . We incorporate in thi s bench opinion the fact s 7 so deemed established . At the time the petition wa s 8 filed,T p- was a residen t pet t i One r of Gastonia, Nort h 7 v 9 Carolina . 10 In general, Respondent's determinations i n 11 the notice of deficiency are entitled to a presumptio n 12 of correctness, and Petitioner bears the burden o f 13 rebutting that presumption byla preponderance of the 14 evidence -- Welch v . Helveripg , 290 U .S . 111 (1933) ; 15 Rule 142(a) -- unless Petitioner meets th e 16 requirements of Section 7491( .) . Petitioner ha s 17 neither claimed the benefits for met the requirements 18 of Section 7491(a), and there ore, the burden of proo f I 19 remains on Petitioner . 20 In the instant case Petitioner has not 21 offered any credible evidencelthat shows tha t 22 Respondent's determinations i4 the notice of 1 23 deficiency are incorrect, nor has Petitioner advanced 24 any arguments that'had any me~it . Indeed, the facts hwe 78P/ 25 deemed established show that Respondent' s Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 4 1 determinations are correct . Wei find that Petitioner 2 has failed to carry his burden~of proof . 3 Consequently, we sustain Respondent's determinations 4 of tax in full . 5 As to the additionnSt~ tax, Petitioner bears TW 6 the burden of proof . Rule 142ka) . Under sectio n 7 7491( c), Respondent must produ be evidence that it i s 8 appropriate to impose a penalti . However, Petitioner 9 bears the burden of proof . Higbee v . Commissioner , 10 116 T . C . 438 , 446 (2001) . 11 The record shows thaft Respondent has met his 12 burden of production under Section 7491(c) to sho w 1 13 that it is appropriate to impose the additions to tax 14 determined by Respondent in this case . Petitioner did 15 not testify and failed to offer any credible evidence 16 on these issues . Consequently, we sustain Responden t 17 on the additions to tax in the amounts determined by 18 Respondent in the notice of d6ficiency . 19 To reflect the forelgoing, decision will be 20 entered for Respondent . The foregoing represents the 21 Court's oral findings of face I and opinion in thi s 22 case . 23 (Whereupon, at 10 :46 a .m ., the bench opinion 24 in the above-entitled matter'iwas concluded . ) 25 // Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 626-4888