River City Ranches #4 - Page 91

                                       - 29 -                                         
          match occurred after petitioners changed the tag number,                    
          registration number, and breed information given in the original            
          bill of sale entry.  The parties have stipulated exhibits in                
          evidence identifying the matches that respondent disputes falling           
          into these foregoing categories.                                            
               The parties’ above posttrial stipulations relate only to the           
          matching of registration certificates to petitioners' corrected             
          bills of sale for the partnerships.  The parties agree that                 
          neither petitioners nor respondent is to be precluded from                  
          arguing that a partnership's breeding flock consisted of more or            
          fewer breeding sheep than the number of certificates matched.               
               A large unspecified number of the above 9,485 certificates             
          cover sheep that the Barnes family never sold to the                        
          partnerships.  In their above matching efforts, petitioners did             
          not attempt to identify and segregate breeding sheep that were              
          never sold to a partnership.  For instance, none of the sheep               
          born in 1965 could possibly have been sold to a partnership, as             
          the first transaction between Barnes Ranches and one of the                 
          partnerships occurred in 1981.                                              
               Petitioners bear the burden of proving that respondent's               
          determinations in the FPAA's are incorrect.  See Rules 142(a),              
          240(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111 (1933).  Particularly,             
          where respondent, as in the instant cases, has disallowed                   

Page:  Previous  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011