- 9 -
see Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933).9
We find all of petitioner's arguments regarding who has the
burden of proof to be without merit. For example, petitioner
contends that the notice is arbitrary. The only argument that
petitioner advances in support of that contention is that respon-
dent's concession of certain determinations in the notice renders
the notice arbitrary as to the remaining determinations therein.
We reject that contention. See United States Holding Co. v.
Commissioner, 44 T.C. 323, 328 (1965). We also reject peti-
tioner's contention that, in an unreported income case such as
the instant case, the burden of proof shifts to respondent merely
because, if it does not, petitioner would be required to prove a
negative. See Rule 142(a); Rapp v. Commissioner, 774 F.2d 932,
935 (9th Cir. 1985), affg. an Order of this Court.10
The Income Allegedly Paid to
and/or Earned by Mr. Hardy
During the Years at Issue
Respondent has presented evidence establishing that during
9 On the record before us, our findings with respect to whether
Mr. Hardy has income for the years at issue would remain the same
regardless who bears the burden of proof on that question.
10 On the instant record, we find that respondent has come
forward with substantive evidence establishing an evidentiary
foundation for respondent's determinations in the notice that Mr.
Hardy has income for 1984 and 1985. See Rapp v. Commissioner,
774 F.2d 932, 935 (9th Cir. 1985), affg. an Order of this Court;
Weimerskirch v. Commissioner, 596 F.2d 358, 360 (9th Cir. 1979),
revg. 67 T.C. 672 (1977).
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