John Edward and Linda Hall - Page 3

                                          3                                           
          amount of $18,789, has now conceded that such net operating loss            
          carryback should be increased by $2,000.                                    
               As part of the statutory notice of deficiency herein for the           
          year 1990, respondent also determined a penalty under section               
          6662(a) against petitioner.                                                 
               So far as the deficiency in tax is concerned, we think it is           
          clear in this Court that the burden of proof is upon petitioner             
          to show error in respondent's determination.  Rule 142(a); Welch            
          v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111 (1933).  This record provides                    
          absolutely no evidence upon which we can determine that                     
          respondent's determination was in error to any extent.  There is            
          no evidence to show petitioner's cost basis in his original one             
          million shares in the corporation, other than the $44,004                   
          determined by respondent, and there is no evidence to indicate              
          that respondent's allocation of 20 percent of such original cost            
          basis, or $8,801, to petitioner's remaining 200,000 shares that             
          he sold in 1990 was an unreasonable action.  At trial, petitioner           
          claimed that his stock basis in the 200,000 shares was over $1              
          million, and proffered a written receipt indicating such amount.            
          Upon cross-examination, however, it developed that this so-called           
          "receipt" was prepared by petitioner himself, showing money as              
          coming from himself to himself, and was, in fact, prepared just             
          before trial of this case.  It was admitted solely as a summary             








Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011