- 6 -
Respondent’s failure to produce an expert report does not in
itself allow petitioner to prevail on the issue of valuation.
See Estate of Scanlan v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-331, affd.
without published opinion 116 F.3d 1476 (5th Cir. 1997); see also
Brigham v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-413 (holding the
determination was not "bare" when respondent relied on sale price
as evidence of the fair market value). We hold respondent's
determination is presumed correct, and petitioner bears the
burden of proving entitlement to the claimed deduction. See Rule
142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111 (1933).5
Turning to the primary issue, we note petitioner claimed the
deduction in question under section 170, which provides, subject
to certain limitations not at issue: “There shall be allowed as
a deduction any charitable contribution * * * payment of which is
made within the taxable year.” Sec. 170(a). Respondent advances
three theories supporting his determination that Arbor is not
entitled to the claimed charitable contribution deduction: (1)
Arbor had no interest in Wolverine Towers to convey to U of M;
(2) the fair market value of the property equaled the sale price
of $9 million; or, alternatively, (3) if the fair market value
5We note also petitioner seeks improperly to apply burden-
shifting principles of unreported income cases to this deduction
case. See Jackson v. Commissioner, 73 T.C. 394, 401 (1979); cf.
Conforte v. Commissioner, 74 T.C. 1160, 1178 (1980), affd. in
part, revd. in part on another issue and remanded 692 F.2d 587
(9th Cir. 1982).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011