6
Petitioner denies all this, and petitioner further claims
unspecified capital loss deductions for 1987 based on judgments
entered against him by holders of notes and members of the
various joint ventures, as well as on account of an alleged
$100,000 loss on a loan made by petitioner to a particular joint
venture. Petitioner claims that his loss in various of the joint
ventures was established when he abandoned his interests in said
ventures, or when said judgments were rendered against him.
As to the three issues remaining to be decided in this case,
as we have detailed above, the burden of proof--that is to say,
the burden of ultimate persuasion--was upon petitioners. Rule
142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111 (1933). It was the task
of petitioners to convince the Court by adequate proof that
respondent was in error, and to what extent, in determining that
petitioners had the additional income for 1987, which respondent
determined came about as a result of petitioner's illegal
abstraction of funds to commingle with other joint accounts over
which he had control, as well as abstraction of funds to use for
petitioner's personal purposes. Likewise, it was petitioners'
burden to show that respondent's determination of additional
unreported capital gains income in 1987 was erroneous, and to
what extent. Finally, it was petitioner's burden to demonstrate
that he had additional losses that were deductible for the year
1987, in excess of any capital gains which he otherwise had
realized.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011