- 33 -
distributed partnership assets under section 1056, and Bowlen I's
basis in the player contracts is not subject to section 1056.
III. Has Bowlen I Correctly Computed the Basis of Partnership
Assets Under the Partnership Provisions?
A. Burden of Proof as to Fair Market Value of Player
Contracts
As a threshold and procedural matter, petitioner argues that
any question concerning the partnership's basis computation under
the partnership provisions is a new matter for which respondent
should bear the burden of proof. Rule 142(a). Petitioner
contends that respondent raised the question concerning the
subchapter K basis computation for the first time at trial and
that issue constitutes a new matter. Respondent argues that,
although this issue was not addressed in the notices of final
partnership administrative adjustment, petitioner raised the
issue by alleging in the pleading that the player contracts’
bases were correctly determined under subchapter K.
Respondent, under section 1056, determined that the
partnership was not entitled to amortization of certain player
contracts for the years under consideration. Petitioner alleged
that respondent erred in applying section 1056 and not accepting
the approach utilized by the partnership. Petitioner's
allegations in the petition address the question of whether the
section 1056 limitations would affect the amount of basis
available for amortization. In the notice of final partnership
administrative adjustments, respondent did not determine that the
Page: Previous 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011