- 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