- 34 -
basis amount used by the partnership for the player contracts was
incorrect, except insofar as it was limited by the requirement of
section 1056(a).
Generally, * * * [taxpayers] [bear] the burden of
proof. Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111
(1933). Respondent, however, bears the burden of proof
as to "any new matter, increases in deficiency, and
affirmative defenses, pleaded in the answer". Rule
142(a). A new position taken by * * * [the
Commissioner] is not necessarily a "new matter" if it
merely clarifies or develops * * * [the Commissioner’s]
original determination without requiring the
presentation of different evidence, being inconsistent
with * * * [the Commissioner’s] original determination,
or increasing the amount of the deficiency. Achiro v.
Commissioner, 77 T.C. 881, 889-891 (1981) * * * .
[Citations omitted.]
Seagate Tech., Inc., & Consol. Subs. v. Commissioner, 102 T.C.
149, 169 (1994).
Respondent raised, for the first time at trial, the question
of whether the partnership correctly valued partnership assets
and hence was required to use section 732(d) to allocate partner
acquisition costs to basis. That question or issue was raised by
respondent as an alternative argument if we should find that
section 1056 did not apply. Petitioner, up until the trial,
simply argued that section 1056 did not apply as determined and
that the partnership's reporting position was, therefore,
correct.
Going into the trial, the sole issue confronting petitioner
was whether the limitations of section 1056 applied to the
partnership's basis in player contracts. Petitioner had
Page: Previous 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011