- 6 -
available, including information provided by the payers
of rental income and/or third party recordkeepers.
Moreover, in petitioner’s brief, she states: “The alleged
deficiency notices admit petitioner’s only source of income was
in the form of real estate rents including rents from property
not owned or otherwise controlled by petitioner.” (Emphasis
added.)
Further, from petitioner’s testimony, we deduce that the
essential point of petitioner’s disagreement with respondent over
the real estate income concerns whether petitioner still owns the
real property in question. Petitioner testified:
In our meeting [petitioner with respondent’s
counsel] I pointed out that they [the IRS] were
attributing real estate rents from property that I’ve
not owned, controlled or had any interest, no financial
interest in whatsoever, for at least a decade. * * *
Thus, we shall determine whether petitioner has proven that
she no longer owns the real estate in question.
B. Burden Of Proof
The general rule is that the burden of proof is upon
petitioner, Rule 142(a), which she must carry by a preponderance
of the evidence, e.g., Schaffer v. Commissioner, 779 F.2d 849,
858 (2d Cir. 1985), affg. in part and remanding Mandina v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1982-34. This case involves unreported
income, however, and it is likely that any appeal will lie to the
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Under Weimerskirch v.
Commissioner, 596 F.2d 358 (9th Cir. 1979), revg. 67 T.C. 672
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011