                  T.C. Summary Opinion 2001-71



                     UNITED STATES TAX COURT



                PERCY RODGERS, JR., Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 1912-00S.                      Filed May 15, 2001.


     Percy Rodgers, Jr., pro se.

     Jack Anagnostis, for respondent.



     DEAN, Special Trial Judge:    This case was heard pursuant to

the provisions of section 7463 of the Internal Revenue Code in

effect at the time the petition was filed.   Unless otherwise

indicated, subsequent section references are to the Internal

Revenue Code in effect for the year in issue, and all Rule

references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The decision to be entered is not reviewable by any other court,

and this opinion should not be cited as authority.
                               - 2 -

     Respondent determined a deficiency of $10,408 in

petitioner’s 1994 Federal income tax and additions to tax of

$983.75 under section 6651(a) and $165.68 under section 6654(a).

The issues for decision are:   (1) Whether petitioner is liable

for the deficiency determined by respondent; (2) whether

petitioner filed a Federal income tax return for 1994 or had

reasonable cause not to file a return; and (3) whether petitioner

underpaid estimated tax for 1994.

     There was no stipulation of facts in this case.    Petitioner

resided in Pennsauken, New Jersey, at the time his petition was

filed with the Court.

     Respondent’s counsel indicated that he was under the

impression that petitioner was ready to concede his liability for

the deficiency in this case but that he was contesting the

additions to tax.   Petitioner, however, appeared at trial and

challenged the deficiency and the additions to tax.    Petitioner

claims that he timely filed his 1994 tax return, but he presented

no documentary evidence and offered no other testimony disputing

respondent’s determination of his income tax liability for the

year in issue.

     Petitioner contends that it is not fair for respondent to

wait 5 years to let him know that his return was not received.

Section 6501(c), however, provides that there is no statute of

limitations restricting the assessment of tax for a year in which
                               - 3 -

a taxpayer has failed to file a return.

     Generally, a deficiency notice is presumed correct, and the

taxpayer has the burden of proving it wrong.     See Rule 142(a);

Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933).1    The only evidence

offered by petitioner at trial was his testimony that he filed

his return.   We are not required to accept petitioner's self-

serving testimony, particularly in the absence of corroborating

evidence.   See Tokarski v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 74, 77 (1986).

If petitioner filed his return, he should have either received a

refund or paid an amount due, yet petitioner presented no

evidence regarding a refund or a payment.

     Petitioner attributes his lack of documentary evidence to

the 5 years that elapsed between the tax year at issue and his

receipt of the notice of deficiency.   Petitioner, however, made

no attempt to explain why respondent’s deficiency determination

is incorrect or provide us with any basis not to uphold it.

Accordingly, we find that petitioner did not file his 1994

Federal income tax return and uphold respondent’s determination

of a deficiency.

     Section 6651(a)(1) provides for an addition to tax where a

return is not timely filed “unless it is shown that such failure


     1
        We do not find that the burden-shifting provisions of
current sec. 6201(d) or sec. 7491 apply.
                                - 4 -

is due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect”.

Petitioner has not presented any evidence establishing a

reasonable cause for his failure to file a return, thus we hold

petitioner is liable for the section 6651(a)(1) addition to tax.

       Section 6654(a) provides for an addition to tax “in the case

of any underpayment of estimated tax by an individual”.     Section

6654 does not provide relief for reasonable cause.     Petitioner

presented no argument regarding payments of estimated tax.     We

thus hold petitioner liable for the section 6654(a) addition to

tax.

       Reviewed and adopted as the report of the Small Tax Case

Division.

                                          Decision will be entered

                                     for respondent.
