- 12 -
the issue of gross income to its most fundamental
components: who owned the funds, and in what form were
they received. The question of fund ownership must be
reduced to its most critical component: who received
the benefit of the funds. The second question
regarding form of receipt begs the critical issue in
this case: did Walter Van Eck receive hundreds of
thousands of dollars in loans and gifts from family
members during the tax years at issue, or is he engaged
in some income producing activity which he and his
relatives are concealing from respondent?
Respondent's frustration, however, and the suspicions born of it,
are no substitute for evidence. Respondent admits that the
properties in question, at least during 1984, 1986, and 1987, did
not belong to Walter (or Walter and Friedgard), and that the
rents from those properties did not "initially" constitute gross
income to Walter or Walter and Friedgard. Without more, such
admissions are consistent only with the conclusion that the rents
in question are not gross income to either Walter or Walter and
Friedgard. Respondent bears the burden of going forward with the
evidence to show that, either by theft or honest labor, the rents
in question became items of gross income of Walter or Walter and
Friedgard. Despite all her huffing and puffing, that is
something respondent has failed to do. Respondent has failed to
carry her burden of going forward with the evidence to prove that
the rents, initially the income of others, became items of gross
income of either Walter or Walter and Friedgard. For that
reason, we find that the rents in question were not items of
gross income to either Walter or Walter and Friedgard. We hold
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011