- 15 -
have an “adequate” opportunity to challenge the IRS’s proof of
claim, because they did not have access to records that had been
seized by the IRS during its criminal investigation of Mrs.
Kendricks, and never returned to them, is to no avail. With
respect to the burden of proof in connection with tax claims in
bankruptcy cases, the rule is that, in the absence of
modification expressed in the Bankruptcy Code, the burden of
proof with respect to a tax claim in bankruptcy remains where the
substantive tax law puts it. Raleigh v. Ill. Dept. of Revenue,
530 U.S. 15, 26 (2000). The Bankruptcy Code makes no provision
for altering the burden of proof with respect to a tax claim, id.
at 22, and, in general, where the Commissioner has determined a
deficiency in tax, the taxpayer bears the burden of proving facts
that show that determination to be incorrect, see Rule 142.
Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933); Feldman v.
Commissioner, 20 F.3d 1128, 1132 (11th Cir. 1994), affg. T.C.
Memo. 1990-532. Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, “the
inability to produce a record which is unintentionally lost,
5(...continued)
suit) or the bankruptcy court (where the action is dismissed
without resolving the IRS’s claims). See Aguirre v.
Commissioner, 117 T.C. 324, 327 (2001). But cf. Montgomery v.
Commissioner, 122 T.C. 1, 9 (2004) (sec. 6330(c)(2)(B) permitted
taxpayers to challenge the existence or amount of the tax
liability reported on their original income tax return because
they had not received a notice of deficiency for the year in
question and they had not otherwise had an opportunity to dispute
the tax liability in question).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011