Estate of Algerine Allen Smith - Page 16




                                       - 16 -                                         
          later, respondent presented such evidence at the trial on remand,           
          but the estate declined to do so.                                           
               As a general rule, the Commissioner’s determination bears a            
          presumption of correctness, and the burden of proof rests with              
          the taxpayer.  Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115           
          (1933); Time Ins. Co. v. Commissioner, 86 T.C. 298, 313-314                 
          (1986); cf. sec. 7491 (generally effective with respect to                  
          examinations commencing after July 22, 1998).  In the notice of             
          deficiency, respondent determined that the estate’s deduction for           
          Exxon’s claim against the estate was allowable in the amount of             
          $681,840, rather than $2,482,719, because “it has not been                  
          established that any greater amount is deductible under the                 
          provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.”                                   
               Deductions are a matter of legislative grace, and the                  
          taxpayer bears the burden of proving the entitlement to any                 
          deduction claimed.  INDOPCO, Inc. v. Commissioner, 503 U.S. 79,             
          84 (1992); New Colonial Ice Co. v. Helvering, 292 U.S. 435, 440             
          (1934).  This burden includes establishing the amount of the                
          deduction claimed.  Time Ins. Co. v. Commissioner, supra at 314;            
          Nichols v. Commissioner, 43 T.C. 135, 143 (1964) (citing Burnet             
          v. Houston, 283 U.S. 223 (1931)).  In Sealy Power, Ltd. v.                  
          Commissioner, 46 F.3d 382, 387 (5th Cir. 1995), affg. in part,              
          revg. in part, and remanding in part T.C. Memo. 1992-168, the               
          Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held:                                






Page:  Previous  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011