- 12 -
from Lubbock. As to the newspaper income, petitioners argue,
respondent failed to prove: (1) That the newspaper was an
income-producing activity that was engaged in by petitioners and
(2) that petitioners actually received income from the newspaper.
On the basis of the facts at hand, we agree with respondent
that petitioners are liable for Federal income tax on the amount
of reconstructed income. As to the burden of proof, the Supreme
Court has held that a notice of deficiency “has the support of a
presumption of correctness, and the petitioner has the burden of
proving it to be wrong.” Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115
(1933); see also United States v. Janis, 428 U.S. 433, 441
(1976); Helvering v. Taylor, 293 U.S. 507, 515 (1935). This
presumption “is not evidence itself and disappears upon the
introduction of evidence to overcome it.” Pizzarello v. United
States, 408 F.2d 579, 583 (2d Cir. 1969); see Compton v. United
States, 334 F.2d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 1964); Ky. Trust Co. v.
Glenn, 217 F.2d 462, 465 (6th Cir. 1954). “If the taxpayer
rebuts the presumption by showing that it is arbitrary and
erroneous, the presumption disappears.” Anastasato v.
Commissioner, 794 F.2d 884, 887 (3d Cir. 1986), vacating and
remanding T.C. Memo. 1985-101; see Helvering v. Taylor, supra at
515. Whereas the Courts of Appeals may vary on the effect upon
the burden of proof when the presumption does disappear, United
States v. Janis, supra at 441, the law of the Fifth Circuit, the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011