-5-
tioners’ amended 1998 return, they claimed that they were enti-
tled under section 112 to exclude from their gross income $17,220
of wages that Mr. Hildebran received from Bay Ship Management
during 1998 for his work as a merchant marine on the Shughart.
In petitioners’ 1999 return, petitioners claimed that they were
entitled under section 112 to exclude from their gross income
$37,883 of wages that Mr. Hildebran received from Bay Ship
Management during 1999 for his work as a merchant marine on the
Shughart.
Respondent issued to petitioners a notice of deficiency
(notice) for taxable years 1998 and 1999. In the notice, respon-
dent determined, inter alia, that petitioners were not entitled
under section 112 to exclude from their gross income for 1998 and
1999 the respective wages of Mr. Hildebran that they excluded
from gross income in petitioners’ amended 1998 return and peti-
tioners’ 1999 return.
OPINION
We presume that respondent’s examination of petitioners’
1998 return, petitioners’ amended 1998 return, and petitioners’
1999 return began after July 22, 1998, and that section 7491(a)
is applicable in the instant case. However, the parties do not
address whether the burden of proof relating to the deficiency
determinations at issue should shift to respondent under section
7491(a). We need not decide whether that burden shifts to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011