Tracy P. Streber, F.K.A. Tracy C. Parker, et al. - Page 31

                                       - 31 -                                         
          has (1) adequately disclosed his or her position, or (2) has                
          substantial authority for the tax treatment of an item.                     
          Sec. 6661; sec. 1.6661-6(a), Income Tax Regs.                               
               The daughters bear the burden of proof with regard to the              
          additions to tax determined by respondent.  Rule 142(a).                    
               In their petitions, both of the daughters assign error to              
          respondent's determinations of additions to tax under sections              
          6653(a) and 6661.  Neither of the daughters, however,                       
          specifically avers any facts in support of those assignments of             
          errors.  On brief, the daughters propose no findings of fact                
          specifically relating to the additions to tax, nor do they set              
          forth any arguments with regard to the additions to tax.  We                
          assume that, in defense to respondent's determinations of                   
          additions to tax, the daughters rely exclusively on our                     
          determining no deficiencies in tax liability.  We have determined           
          such deficiencies.  The daughters have failed to carry their                
          burdens of proof.  Respondent's determinations of additions to              
          tax with respect to the daughters are sustained.                            


                                             Decisions will be entered                
                                        for respondent in docket Nos.                 
                                        345-92 and 352-92.                            
                                             Decision will be entered                 
                                        for petitioners in docket No.                 
                                        900-92.                                       




Page:  Previous  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  

Last modified: May 25, 2011