                        T.C. Memo. 1996-394



                      UNITED STATES TAX COURT



        W. C. BENSON AND LINDA R. BENSON, Petitioners v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 4006-95.                      Filed August 26, 1996.



     W. C. Benson, pro se.

     Vicki L. Miller, for respondent



                        MEMORANDUM OPINION

     KÖRNER, Judge:   Respondent determined deficiencies in and

accuracy-related penalties on petitioners' Federal income taxes

for the years 1990 and 1991 as follows:

                                        Penalty
           Year       Deficiency       Sec. 6662

           1990       $1,316.56         $263.31
           1991       10,817.41        1,991.45
                                  2

        All statutory references are to the Internal Revenue Code

in effect for the years in issue, and all Rule references are to

the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, except as

otherwise noted.

     Petitioners W. C. and Linda R. Benson, husband and wife,

filed joint income tax returns for the calendar years 1990 and

1991.   At the time the petition herein was filed, petitioners

were residents of Memphis, Tennessee.

     By stipulation, petitioners agreed to the adjustment made by

respondent to petitioners' income for 1990 and 1991 on account of

income from pension and profit-sharing plans in the respective

amounts of $2,250 and $6,250.   The parties also agreed that

petitioners are entitled to an additional deduction for car and

truck repairs and maintenance expenses in the amount of $550.12

in 1991, over that which was allowed by respondent.   In all other

respects, respondent has made no concessions with regard to the

propriety of the statutory notice issued to petitioners nor of

the issues herein.

     Except as otherwise provided by statute or by Rule of this

Court, the burden of proof is on petitioner to demonstrate that

respondent's determination was in error and, if necessary, the

amount thereof.    Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111

(1933).   Except for the concessions that the parties have agreed

to, mentioned above, there is no evidence in this record from

which the Court can conclude that respondent erred in any respect
                                  3

in the determination that is the subject of this appeal.    No one

testified at the trial herein except petitioner W. C. Benson, and

his testimony was rambling, discursive, and provided no facts,

either through testimony or admissible exhibits, which would

assist the Court in making meaningful findings of fact.

Petitioners' brief was likewise of no assistance.

     We must conclude that, with the exception of the items

specifically mentioned by the parties and included in the written

stipulations, petitioners have completely failed to demonstrate

any error with respect to respondent's determinations for the

years 1990 and 1991.   This includes the determined penalties

under section 6662.    These penalties were not mentioned at trial

or on brief.   It is uncertain whether petitioners intended to

concede them or not; in any case, the burden of proof was on

them, Enoch v. Commissioner, 57 T.C. 781, 803 (1972); Bixby v.

Commissioner, 58 T.C. 757, 791 (1972), and petitioners failed to

carry their necessary burden.

                                      Decision will be entered

                                under Rule 155.
