- 6 -
respectively. On the amended returns, petitioners claimed
depreciation for the equipment that was returned to the
lessor/vendors.
OPINION
Petitioners contend that they are entitled to additional
deductions and losses not claimed on their returns as originally
filed. They assert that, after conceding that amounts of
unreported income determined in the statutory notice were
erroneous, respondent sought ways to deny them deductions that
they erroneously did not claim on their original returns, in
order to sustain some deficiency in tax for each year. According
to respondent, the amounts now in dispute approximate $1,150 for
1990 and $200 for 1991.
Petitioners’ accusations against respondent’s agents have no
persuasive effect in this case. See Greenberg’s Express, Inc. v.
Commissioner, 62 T.C. 324 (1974). The only remaining issues are
whether petitioners are entitled to the additional deductions
that they now claim and whether they are liable for the penalties
for negligence. They have the burden of proof on these factual
issues. Rule 142(a); INDOPCO, Inc. v. Commissioner, 503 U.S. 79,
84 (1992); Rockwell v. Commissioner, 512 F.2d 882 (9th Cir.
1975), affg. T.C. Memo. 1972-133. Unless petitioners
substantiate their deductions, we do not reach legal issues
raised by respondent, to wit, whether any farm losses would
belong to the bankruptcy estate and not be deductible on
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011