C. Wayne Lewis, Jr., Petitioner
T.C.
T.C. Memo. 2005-111 UNITED STATES TAX COURT C. WAYNE LEWIS, JR., Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 7211-04.
Filed May 17, 2005.
C. Wayne Lewis, Jr., pro se.
Randolph J. Buchanan, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
FOLEY, Judge:
By notices dated January 21, 2004, respondent determined deficiencies in and additions to petitioner's 1998, 2000, and 2001 Federal income taxes.
The issues for decision are whether petitioner received unreported income and is liable for sections 6651(a)(1)¹ and 6654(a) additions to tax.
¹ Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue, and (continued...)
SERVED Ej 7 2005 Pensions, Annuities, Retirement or Profit-Sharing Plans, IRAs, Insurance Contracts, etc., reflecting such distribution.
On January 21, 2004, respondent issued petitioner notices of deficiency relating to 1998, 2000, and 2001.
In the notices, respondent determined that petitioner received unreported income, did not file Federal income tax returns relating to those years, and did not pay sufficient estimated taxes relating to 2001.
On April 30, 2004, petitioner filed his petition, and on June 15, 2004, respondent filed his answer.
Petitioner resided in Tyler, Texas, at the time he filed his petition.
.
OPINION
Generally, a notice of deficiency is presumed correct, and the taxpayer bears the burden of proving that the determination is erroneous. Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933).
The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, where an appeal would lie, has recognized, however, that "a court need not give effect to the presumption of correctness in a case involving unreported income if the Commissioner cannot present some predicate evidence supporting its determination." Portillo v. Commissioner, 932 F.2d 1128, 1133 (5th Cir. 1991), affg.
in part and revg. and remanding in part T.C. Memo. 1990-68.
Petitioner raises numerous meritless contentions; concedes that he provided services to HMC, SRAM, and VRI; and does not additions to tax as determined by respondent.
Contentions we have not addressed are irrelevant, moot, or meritless.
To reflect the foregoing, Decision will be entered for respondent.
Chat with this case using AI
Ask CiteLaw's AI Navigator anything about this case, check whether it is still good law, and see every case that cites it. Sign up for CiteLaw free today to get started.