Charles R. Harp and April B. Harp - Page 24

                                                                               - 24 -- 24 -                                                                                
                    argument that petitioners have unreported income for 1990 result-                                                                                      
                    ing from the discharge of the outstanding balances of the                                                                                              
                    Kabeiseman loans, certain documents in the record indicate that                                                                                        
                    questions regarding that matter were raised prior to trial by                                                                                          
                    respondent, after petitioners had informed respondent that                                                                                             
                    certain deposits totaling $29,000 during 1989 consisted of two                                                                                         
                    loans that Mr. Kabeiseman had made to petitioner.  On the record                                                                                       
                    before us, we find that respondent's arguments that petitioners                                                                                        
                    have unreported income for 1989 and 1990 resulting from the                                                                                            
                    deposits of misappropriated funds and for 1990 resulting from the                                                                                      
                    discharge of the outstanding balances of the Kabeiseman loans are                                                                                      
                    properly before us.                                                                                                                                    
                              With respect to the parties' disagreement over whether                                                                                       
                    respondent bears the burden of proof on the two matters in                                                                                             
                    question, we shall deal with each of those matters separately                                                                                          
                    because we view them differently.  Although a taxpayer generally                                                                                       
                    has the burden of proving that respondent's determinations in the                                                                                      
                    notice of deficiency are erroneous, respondent bears the burden                                                                                        
                    of proving any new matter that was not raised in that notice.                                                                                          
                    See Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933);                                                                                         
                    Foster v. Commissioner, 80 T.C. 34, 197 (1983), affd. in part and                                                                                      
                    vacated in part by 756 F.2d 1430 (9th Cir. 1985).  The assertion                                                                                       
                    of a new theory that merely clarifies or develops the original                                                                                         
                    determination without (1) being inconsistent with that determina-                                                                                      
                    tion, (2) increasing the amount of the deficiency, or (3) requir-                                                                                      




Page:  Previous  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011