Estate of William T. Rogers - Page 13

                                       - 13 -                                         

          the evidence had been submitted.  Moreover, as we stated above,             
          respondent has the burden of proof in the instant case.  A                  
          decision in favor of respondent, therefore, cannot rest on                  
          assumption or speculation but must rest on fact.  Champayne v.              
          Commissioner, 26 T.C. 634, 645 (1956); Wood Corp. v.                        
          Commissioner, 22 B.T.A. 1182, 1186 (1931), affd. 63 F.2d 623 (6th           
          Cir. 1933).  That the instant case was submitted to the Court               
          fully stipulated does not relieve respondent of that burden.                
          King's Court Mobile Home Park, Inc. v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 511,           
          517 (1992).                                                                 
               In sum, respondent has failed to introduce evidence in the             
          instant case sufficient to show the character of the interest Mr.           
          Rogers received in the nonhospital properties.  Even if we were             
          to assume that Mr. Rogers received a valuable6 interest in such             
          properties, respondent introduced no evidence to show that Mr.              
          Rogers received that interest during 1991.  Accordingly, based on           
          the woefully inadequate record before us, we hold that respondent           
          has failed to carry the burden of proof in the instant case.                
               Because we have found that respondent has failed to prove              
          that Mr. Rogers received a compensatory interest in the                     
          nonhospital properties during 1991, we hold that petitioners are            
          not liable for the penalty pursuant to section 6662(a) for                  

          6    Because we hold for petitioner, the issue regarding the                
          value of Mr. Rogers' interest in the contract rights is moot.               

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011