-15- Petitioner, on behalf of Balmac, applied for and obtained a $1.1 million bank loan based on a number of representations that were consistent with a sale to Balmac. Further, there was a grant deed and deed of trust which were filed with the San Diego County Recorder's office. And finally, there was the escrow check for $1,960,680.25 that was delivered to petitioner's nominee, WTC under the Holding Agreement, as seller, and a $5 million installment note that was secured by the recorded deed of trust. Petitioners did not attempt to show that the sale transaction to Balmac was the result of mistake, undue influence, fraud, or duress. Instead, they ask us to disregard the transaction as nothing but a ruse to obtain the $1.1 million bank loan and want us to believe that the transaction was as they reported for tax purposes. We refuse to do so. "[W]hile a taxpayer is free to organize his affairs as he chooses, nevertheless, once having done so, he must accept the tax consequences of his choice, whether contemplated or not * * * and may not enjoy the benefit of some other route he might have chosen to follow but did not." Commissioner v. National Alfalfa Dehydrating & Milling Co., 417 U.S. 134, 149 (1974). Where a taxpayer seeks to disavow what is purported to be a sale, the burden lies with the taxpayer to prove error in the Commissioner's determination that the transaction was in fact a sale. Shannon v. Commissioner, 29 T.C. 702, 718 (1958). Here, petitioners failed to prove error in respondent's determination.Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011