- 10 -
Respondent argues7 that the underlying investment in this
case is similar to that in Provizer v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1992-177, affd. without published opinion 996 F.2d 1216 (6th Cir.
1993). Petitioner in her brief represents that "This case is
substantially similar to" Zidanich v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1995-382 (underlying transactions and recyclers were the same as
those considered in Provizer v. Commissioner, supra). Petitioner
distinguishes Provizer on bases other than the substance of the
underlying transaction. We therefore assume that the underlying
transaction in this case is similar to that of Provizer, where we
held that the transaction was a sham and lacked economic
substance.8
Petitioner contends that she was an "unsophisticated"
investor with no "formal training or work experience in
investments" and that she relied on Russell in making the
investment. She complains that she should not have to
"independently investigate every detail of her investment".
7Although we have characterized respondent's position as one
of argument, she considers it stipulated that the underlying
transactions here are analogous to those in Provizer v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-177, affd. without published
opinion 996 F.2d 1216 (6th Cir. 1993). Paragraph 2 of the
stipulation of settled issues is ambiguous, but may be so
interpreted.
8Even absent this assumption it would be petitioner's burden
to prove the context in which the deductions and credits were
taken. Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115
(1933); Bixby v. Commissioner, 58 T.C. 757, 791-792 (1972).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011