Datha D. Burke - Page 8

                                                 - 8 -                                                   
            from Mr. Burke equal to the Bank Stock's original cost because                               
            the value of the stock was "uncertain and extremely doubtful".                               
            Petitioners allege that the Bank stock became worthless in or                                
            around 1984, and that they never received any benefit from their                             
            ownership of the stock.  Petitioners argue that the substance of                             
            the facts surrounding the cancellation of Mr. Burke's debt is                                
            analogous to Kerbaugh-Empire Co., although the form that they                                
            employed to effectuate this cancellation is not.  Respondent                                 
            argues that the form used by petitioners controls this case, and,                            
            even if it does not, BEC's cancellation of Mr. Burke's debt is a                             
            taxable event.  Petitioners bear the burden of proof.  Rule                                  
            142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933).                                        
                  We agree with respondent that BEC's cancellation of                                    
            Mr. Burke's debt is a taxable event.  Petitioners' brief is aimed                            
            primarily at their claim that the instant facts resemble the                                 
            facts of Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., supra, and that Kerbaugh-                            
            Empire Co. entitles them to exclude the amount of canceled debt                              
            from income.  To support their position, petitioners rely mainly                             
            on Mr. Burke's testimony, which was brief.  We are unpersuaded.                              
            We find most of Mr. Burke's testimony unbelievable.  It was                                  
            general and conclusory in nature, and most of it is unsupported                              
            by other evidence in the record.  Under the circumstances, we are                            
            not required to rely on this testimony, and we do not.  United                               
            States v. Hager, 969 F.2d 883, 888 (10th Cir. 1992); United                                  






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011