W.C. Benson and Linda R. Benson - Page 2

                                          2                                           
               All statutory references are to the Internal Revenue Code              
          in effect for the years in issue, and all Rule references are to            
          the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, except as                    
          otherwise noted.                                                            
               Petitioners W. C. and Linda R. Benson, husband and wife,               
          filed joint income tax returns for the calendar years 1990 and              
          1991.  At the time the petition herein was filed, petitioners               
          were residents of Memphis, Tennessee.                                       
               By stipulation, petitioners agreed to the adjustment made by           
          respondent to petitioners' income for 1990 and 1991 on account of           
          income from pension and profit-sharing plans in the respective              
          amounts of $2,250 and $6,250.  The parties also agreed that                 
          petitioners are entitled to an additional deduction for car and             
          truck repairs and maintenance expenses in the amount of $550.12             
          in 1991, over that which was allowed by respondent.  In all other           
          respects, respondent has made no concessions with regard to the             
          propriety of the statutory notice issued to petitioners nor of              
          the issues herein.                                                          
               Except as otherwise provided by statute or by Rule of this             
          Court, the burden of proof is on petitioner to demonstrate that             
          respondent's determination was in error and, if necessary, the              
          amount thereof.  Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111              
          (1933).  Except for the concessions that the parties have agreed            
          to, mentioned above, there is no evidence in this record from               
          which the Court can conclude that respondent erred in any respect           




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011