                         T.C. Memo. 1996-227



                       UNITED STATES TAX COURT



             DANIEL DANFORTH KRUEGER, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 11530-94.                        Filed May 20, 1996.



     Daniel Danforth Krueger, pro se.1

     Janet J. Johnson, for respondent.



                         MEMORANDUM OPINION

     CHIECHI, Judge:    Respondent determined the following defi-

ciencies in, and additions to, petitioner's Federal income tax:




1
   On Mar. 11, 1996, well after the trial herein and the dates on
which briefs were due, James P. Beck filed an entry of appearance
on behalf of petitioner.
                                   - 2 -


                                           Additions to Tax
                                       Section         Section
                                               2
          Year        Deficiency       6651(a)           6654

          1987          $4,449             $1,112       $270
          1988           3,155                789        202
          1989           3,963                991        268
          1990           4,044              1,011        265
       The issues for decision are:

       (1)     Did petitioner have income for each of the years at

issue in the amounts determined by respondent?       We hold that he

did.

       (2)     Is petitioner entitled to deductions and/or exemptions

for any of the years at issue in excess of those allowed by

respondent?       We hold that he is not.

       (3)     Is petitioner liable for self-employment tax for each

of the years at issue?       We hold that he is.

       (4)     Is petitioner liable for the addition to tax for

failure to file for each of the years at issue?       We hold that he

is.

       (5)     Is petitioner liable for the addition to tax for

failure to make estimated tax payments for each of the years at

issue?       We hold that he is.

Background

       Petitioner's address as indicated in the petition he filed

2
   All sections references are to the Internal Revenue Code in
effect for the years at issue. All Rule references are to the
Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
                               - 3 -


was in Missouri.

     As of the time this case was called for trial on November

13, 1995, petitioner had completely failed to comply with this

Court's standing pretrial order and certain of its Rules (e.g.,

Rule 91).

     At trial, petitioner initially refused to provide any

testimony as to relevant facts, and he did not present any

documents in support of his positions on the various issues in

this case.   Upon questioning by the Court, petitioner conceded

that he received the dividend and interest income determined by

respondent and that he received gross receipts from the payors

determined by respondent.   However, he testified that he could

not remember the amounts of such gross receipts.   He also testi-

fied in general, conclusory, and/or vague terms about deductions

to which he claims he is entitled for the years at issue.

     At the conclusion of the trial herein, the Court set a

briefing schedule under which simultaneous opening briefs were

due on January 12, 1996, and simultaneous answering briefs were

due on February 12, 1996.   The Court also reminded petitioner

that the only record on which the Court would decide this case is

the record established at trial, which consists solely of peti-

tioner's testimony, and informed the parties that although the

record in this case had been submitted at trial, it was still

possible for the parties to attempt to settle the case.   The
                              - 4 -


Court urged petitioner to present to respondent prior to the

dates on which briefs were due any documents that he claimed

supported his positions on the issues in this case, but that he

did not present as evidence at trial.   The Court also urged

respondent to give serious consideration to any such documenta-

tion that petitioner provided to her after trial, with a view to

settling some or all of the issues herein.

     On January 11, 1996, petitioner filed a motion for an

extension of time within which to file his opening brief in this

case (petitioner's motion for an extension).   Due to its inabil-

ity to reach petitioner, the Court was not able to hold a tele-

phonic conference with the parties regarding petitioner's motion

for an extension until January 17, 1996.   During that telephonic

conference, petitioner acknowledged that he had thus far pre-

sented no documentation whatsoever to respondent in an attempt to

settle some or all of the issues in this case.   During that same

telephonic conference, petitioner made general allegations

relating to his inability to present documentation to respondent.

Petitioner further indicated that he might obtain an affidavit

from a doctor that he would send to the Court.   No such affidavit

was ever received by the Court.   On January 18, 1996, the Court

denied petitioner's motion for an extension.   However, since the

date on which simultaneous opening briefs were due, viz., January

12, 1996, had passed by the time the Court was able to have a
                                 - 5 -


telephonic conference with the parties concerning that motion,

the Court allowed the parties a reasonable period of time until

January 26, 1996, within which to finalize and file their opening

briefs.   Respondent's opening brief was timely filed.   No opening

brief was filed by petitioner.    Accordingly, the Court ordered

that (1) respondent's opening brief was to be served on peti-

tioner, (2) respondent was not required to file an answering

brief, and (3) petitioner was not allowed to file either an

opening brief or an answering brief.

Discussion

     We note at the outset that petitioner bears the burden of

proving that the determinations in the notice of deficiency are

erroneous.   Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115

(1933).   We also note that deductions are strictly a matter of

legislative grace, and a taxpayer must meet the specific statu-

tory requirements for any deduction claimed.    New Colonial Ice

Co. v. Helvering, 292 U.S. 435, 440 (1934).

     The scant record in this case consists of petitioner's

testimony.   Based on that record, we sustain respondent's income

determinations.   We further find on the record before us that

petitioner has failed to show that he is entitled to any deduc-

tions or exemptions in excess of those allowed by respondent3 or

3
   Petitioner's general, conclusory, and/or vague testimony
regarding the deductions to which he claims he is entitled for
                                                   (continued...)
                                 - 6 -


that he is not liable for self-employment tax or for the addi-

tions to tax determined by respondent.

     To reflect the foregoing,


                                         Decision will be entered for

                                 respondent.




3
 (...continued)
the years at issue did not provide us with a basis on which to
determine that he incurred deductible expenses and/or to estimate
the amounts of any expenses that he claims he incurred.
