- 6 -
Petitioners argue that there is no authority for requiring
them to bear the burden of proof.3 We note initially that the
burden of proof is not in question in these cases. Petitioners
have conceded the deficiencies and additions to tax as determined
in the notices of deficiency and as claimed by respondent in her
amendments to answer. The burden of proof is a device utilized
in a legal proceeding to establish which party must come forward
with sufficient factual evidence to allow the Court to make its
findings. Zirker v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 970, 978 (1986). Had
petitioners not conceded the deficiencies and additions to tax,
the burden of proof would have been split between petitioners and
respondent.4 However, in light of petitioners' concession of the
deficiencies and additions to tax (including the increased
deficiencies and additions claimed by respondent in her
amendments to answers), any question as to the burden of proof is
3 RULE 142. BURDEN OF PROOF
(a) General: The burden of proof shall be upon the
petitioner, except as otherwise provided by statute or
determined by the Court; and except that, in respect of
any new matter, increases in deficiency, and
affirmative defenses, pleaded in the answer, it shall
be upon the respondent. * * *
4 Petitioners would have the burden of proof with respect
to the deficiencies and additions to tax determined in the
notices of deficiency, and respondent would have the burden of
proof with respect to new matters raised in respondent's
amendments to answers. Rule 142(a); Wayne Bolt & Nut Co. v.
Commissioner, 93 T.C. 500, 507 (1989); Zirker v. Commissioner,
87 T.C. 970, 978 (1986); Achiro v. Commissioner, 77 T.C. 881, 890
(1981).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011