Black v. Commissioner
Robert Kenneth Black v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
OPINION. Opper, Judge: A deficiency of $144.90 in income tax for the year 1950 was originally determined against petitioner. By amended answer respondent seeks to increase the deficiency to the total amount of $210. There was no appearance on behalf of petitioner at the hearing. Respondent’s application for an increase in the deficiency and his affirmative allegations in the amended answer place a part of the burden of proof upon him. Stephen P. Hull, 18 B. T. A. 265. Normally that burden is discharged by the introduction of evidence on respondent’s part even where there is a default by petitioner. In the present case, however, a motion had previously been made by respondent under Tax Court Rule 18, culminating in an order that the affirmative allegations of the amended answer which were un-denied by petitioner be deemed to be admitted. In that state of the pleadings the admissions of petitioner dispense with the necessity of proof, and for that reason we find as facts the allegations in question and conclude that respondent’s burden of proof has been successfully maintained.
Decision will be entered that there is a deficiency in the amount of $210.
Combined text as published — syllabus, headnotes and all opinions in one document
Robert Kenneth Black, Petitioner, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent
Black v. Commissioner
Docket No. 37398 United States Tax Court 19 T.C. 474 ; 1952 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 19 ; December 17, 1952 , Promulgated *19 Decision will be entered that there is a deficiency in the amount of $ 210 .
Respondent's burden of proof as to increased deficiency held adequately supported by facts alleged in answer and deemed admitted as a result of Tax Court's order under Rule 18 entered after notice and default by petitioner.
Melvin A. Bruck, Esq ., for the respondent.
Opper, Judge .
OPPER
OPINION.
A *475 deficiency of $ 144.90 in income tax for the year 1950 was originally determined against petitioner. By amended answer respondent seeks to increase the deficiency to the total amount of $ 210. There was no appearance on behalf of petitioner at the hearing. Respondent's application for an increase in the deficiency and his affirmative allegations in the amended answer place a part of the burden of proof upon him. Stephen P. Hull , 18 B.T.A. 265 . Normally that burden is discharged by the introduction of evidence on respondent's part even where there is a default by petitioner. In the present case, however, a motion had previously been made by respondent under Tax Court Rule 18 , culminating in an order that the affirmative allegations of the amended answer *20 which were undenied by petitioner be deemed to be admitted. In that state of the pleadings the admissions of petitioner dispense with the necessity of proof, and for that reason we find as facts the allegations in question and conclude that respondent's burden of proof has been successfully maintained.
Decision will be entered that there is a deficiency in the amount of $ 210 .
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 23 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.