- 8 -
rebutted by clear and convincing evidence; and (3) section 66(b)
and (c) does not apply in the instant case.
Before focusing on the foregoing matters, we shall address
petitioner's contention, which respondent disputes, that respon-
dent has the burden of proving that Mr. Hardy has income for the
years at issue.7
We conclude that respondent has the burden of proving that
Mr. Hardy has income for 1983, a new matter that respondent did
not determine in the notice,8 see Rule 142(a), and that peti-
tioner has the burden of proving error in respondent's determina-
tions in the notice that Mr. Hardy has income for 1984 and 1985,
7 We do not understand petitioner to contend that respondent
also has the burden of proving (1) that the presumption under
Nevada law that the income paid to and/or earned by Mr. Hardy
during the years at issue is community income is not rebutted
and (2) that sec. 66(b) and (c) does not apply in the present
case. Even if we misunderstood petitioner's position regarding
who has the burden of proof on those two matters, we conclude
that (1) petitioner, who is the spouse claiming that the income
paid to and/or earned by Mr. Hardy during the years at issue is
not community income, has the burden under Nevada law to rebut by
clear and convincing evidence the presumption under that law that
that income is community income, see Pryor v. Pryor, 103 Nev.
148, 150, 734 P.2d 718, 719 (1987), and (2) petitioner, who
relies on sec. 66(b) and (c), has the burden of proving that she
has satisfied the requirements of that section. Cf. United
States v. Shanbaum, 10 F.3d 305, 311 (5th Cir. 1994).
8 Petitioner does not even advance as a ground for her position
that respondent has the burden of proving that Mr. Hardy has
income for 1983 that that is a new matter that was not determined
in the notice.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011