- 5 -
are incorrect. Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111,
115 (1933).
Respondent, however, bears the burden of proof with regard
to new issues and increases in the deficiency. Rule 142(a). The
question of what constitutes a new issue depends, among other
things, on whether different evidence must be presented than that
relating to the issues raised in the original notice of
deficiency. Achiro v. Commissioner, 77 T.C. 881 (1981).
Petitioner argues that the mutual fund misclassified her
status as a U.S. resident for Federal income tax purposes and
incorrectly invested her $1,015,489 in a mutual fund on which
both interest and dividends were earned. Petitioner argues that
(due to this alleged misclassification and incorrect mutual fund
into which her funds were invested) she received from the mutual
fund dividend income of $8,414 and $106,682 in 1988 and 1989,
respectively, instead of interest. Petitioner emphasizes that
had the dividends been received as interest, the interest would
have been treated as nontaxable under section 871(h). Petitioner
therefore argues that the dividend income that she did receive
should now be reclassified as interest and treated as nontaxable
for Federal income tax purposes under section 871(h).
As explained, respondent concedes that the actual interest
that petitioner received on her mutual fund investment qualifies
as nontaxable under section 871(h).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011