Zeeman Manufacturing Company, Inc. - Page 6

                                        - 6 -                                         
          facts necessary to notify respondent of the bases of the grounds            
          asserted.  Soros Associates Intl., Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C.               
          Memo. 1982-79.  The taxpayer is not required to state facts                 
          sufficient to meet a burden of proof which it may never have.               
          Id.                                                                         
               The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit3 has stated:                
               We think �534's language indicates that the statement                  
               simply serves a notice function.  Whether the "grounds"                
               divulged in the statement subsequently prove convincing                
               is irrelevant to this function.  * * *  But just as the                
               statement is not supposed to be legally sufficient on                  
               the question of definiteness, neither is it supposed to                
               be a substitute for testimony at trial.  [Motor Fuel                   
               Carriers, Inc. v. Commissioner, 559 F.2d 1348, 1352                    
               (5th Cir. 1977), revg. T.C. Memo. 1975-296; citations                  
               omitted.4]                                                             
          To "show its hand" sufficiently, the taxpayer must provide                  
          details, where appropriate, with respect to specific amounts                
          needed to be expended for reasonable business needs "so that                

          3    In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir.                
          1981), the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, the circuit           
          to which any appeal of the instant case would lie, adopted as               
          binding precedent all of the decisions of the Court of Appeals              
          for the Fifth Circuit rendered prior to the close of business on            
          Sept. 30, 1981.                                                             
          4    Respondent argues that petitioner relies on Motor Fuel                 
          Carriers, Inc. v. Commissioner, 559 F.2d 1348 (5th Cir. 1977),              
          revg. T.C. Memo. 1975-296, as holding that the Court of Appeals             
          for the Fifth Circuit requires a lower standard than other courts           
          in deciding the sufficiency of sec. 534(c) statements.  We                  
          disagree.  Petitioner, contrary to respondent's assertion, cites            
          Motor Fuel Carriers, Inc. for the proposition that, for purposes            
          of shifting the burden of proof pursuant to sec. 534, a sec.                
          534(c) statement is subject to a lower standard than the                    
          substantive inquiry at trial pursuant to sec. 533(a).                       
          Accordingly, we conclude that respondent’s argument is without              
          merit.                                                                      




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