In support of his theory, Hendrickson proceeds to cite Rule 301 of the Federal Rules of Evidence...........Walbaum [an alleged follower of Hendrickson's tax scam who lost in court] acknowledged that he was SUBJECTED to withholding, not that he was subject to it. This is just a pretense of misunderstanding by the judge, and as such, not an exploitation of something left undone by Walbaum (presuming that he is, in fact, CtC-educated, and acted accordingly) but rather a plain evasion of Walbaum's otherwise insurmountable position.
It is also clear error, if the issue in this matter was Walbaum's rebuttal of a "notice of deficiency".
In a "notice of deficiency" and its related procedures, the government makes an assertion, and by way of his petition to Tax Court and related submissions, the target [the taxpayer] makes his answer (or, by silence, defaults in favor of the motion/assertion). As such, government bears a positive burden of proof.......
Let's see now. Pete is saying that the government (respondent), not the taxpayer (petitioner), bears the burden of proof in U.S. Tax Court. He goes on:
http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=2454Further, the court's obligation is to treat the petitioner's assertions-- and all reasonable inferences therefrom-- as true...
Amazing...... Up to now virtually every tax lawyer and Tax Court judge in the United States thought that the burden of proof in general rested on the taxpayer -- the petitioner -- in U.S. Tax Court. Thank goodness Peter was here to straighten us out.