- 9 -
that respondent did not make a determination with respect to the
$151,382 portion of the $658,000 adjustment. The Court,
therefore, has jurisdiction over this issue. Petitioner's motion
to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, and its supplemental motion
to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, therefore, will be denied.
In the alternative, petitioner contends that, if the Court
has jurisdiction over the $151,382 issue, the burden of proof as
to this issue should shift to respondent. That is the basis of
petitioner's second motion. Petitioner relies primarily on
Portillo v. Commissioner, 932 F.2d 1128 (5th Cir. 1991), affg. in
part and revg. in part T.C. Memo. 1990-68. In its memorandum of
authorities in support of this motion, petitioner argues:
In the income tax return for 1991, Petitioner claimed
hundreds of thousands of deductions totaling over $141
million. All deductions claimed in the return are
identifiable and supportable. Petitioner can prove that all
expenditures deducted in the return were proper by producing
invoices and other support for such expenditures. However,
this process is practically unworkable as it would involve
the production of hundreds of thousands of documents and
thousands of hours of court time to review. In the end, the
Court would find that all expenditures were properly
deducted in preparing the return, including the $151,382 of
unidentified costs erroneously characterized as merger-
related costs in the Disclosure Statement. Respondent must
provide sufficient specificity in the Notice of Deficiency
as to which deductions are being disallowed in order for the
Court, Petitioner, and Respondent to come to some meaningful
resolution of the issue. A blanket disallowance of
unidentified costs effectively requires the taxpayer to
prove up the correctness of the entire return and lends
itself to a unreasonably burdensome and unworkable process
for taxpayers, Respondent, and the courts.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011