Davis
v.
C. I. R

Not overruled or negatively treated on appealinfoCoverage
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth CircuitMar 29, 1982
674 F.2d 553 (6th Cir. 1982)

Cases citing this case

How cited

lock 8 Citing caseskeyboard_arrow_right

Summaries written by judges

Summaries

  • holding that a taxpayer's sworn tax return is not sufficient evidence to substantiate a claim that the government's assessment is erroneous

    Summary of this case from Wireless v. U.S.

No. 81-1205.

Submitted on Briefs March 26, 1982.

Decided March 29, 1982.

James R. Davis, Dayton, Ohio, for petitioner-appellant.

John F. Murray, Michael L. Paup, Richard Perkins, Farley Katz, Tax Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondent-appellee.

Appeal from the Tax Court.

Before LIVELY and JONES, Circuit Judges, and WEICK, Senior Circuit Judge.


ORDER

This appeal has been referred to a panel of the Court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. After examination of the briefs and record, this panel agrees unanimously that oral argument is not needed. Rule 34(a), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Petitioner received a notice of deficiency for his income tax for 1976. Disagreeing with the determinations, petitioner filed a petition in the Tax Court for a redetermination. The Commissioner filed an answer which petitioner thought was too general, so he moved to hold the Commissioner in default. The court denied the motion and the case proceeded to trial.

At trial, petitioner argued that the notice was arbitrary and offered only his sworn tax return as evidence to substantiate his claims for deductions and credits. He also asserted that the burden was on the government to prove his deductions were invalid.

Because the Commissioner's determination of a deficiency is presumed to be correct and the taxpayer has the burden to show it to be otherwise, Coomes v. C. I. R., 572 F.2d 554 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 854, 99 S.Ct. 164, 58 L.Ed.2d 160 (1978), the Tax Court found that by failing to present any documentation to substantiate his claims, petitioner had failed to carry his burden of proof. Judgment was therefore entered against petitioner.

Upon consideration, we agree with the findings of the Tax Court. Accordingly,

It is ORDERED that the judgment of the Tax Court be, and it hereby is, affirmed. Rule 9(d)3, Rules of the Sixth Circuit.