- 7 -
recognized by other Federal courts, we understand the
difficulties encountered in proving a negative; however, if
petitioner did not receive any of the items of income, we would
expect that, at the very least, he would tell us so. See Wichita
Terminal Elevator Co. v. Commissioner, 6 T.C. 1158 (1946), affd.
162 F.2d 513 (10th Cir. 1947).
Nevertheless, to the extent that respondent had an
obligation to link petitioner to the income-generating activities
relating to the items of income, he has satisfied that obligation
through the introduction of predicate evidence. Absent some
showing by petitioner as to how the distribution in liquidation
should have been divided between himself and his spouse, there is
no basis for making any apportionment. In any case, the
presumption of correctness to which the Commissioner is normally
entitled remains intact in this case.
The burden of proof in this case is upon petitioner.
Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering, supra at 115.
His testimony that he cannot remember any of the relevant
transactions that gave rise to the items of income is
insufficient to satisfy his burden of proof. Because he has
failed to meet that burden, the determinations made in the notice
of deficiency, including the additional tax imposed by section
72(t) and the addition to tax under section 6651(a) are
sustained.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011