- 10 -
determine which parent was entitled to receive the earned income
credit with respect to Liane and Sean.
Respondent's position remained unchanged on November 16,
1998, when respondent filed an answer to petitioner's petition.
In respondent's explanation of the notices of deficiency,
respondent informed petitioner that in order to have the
deficiencies redetermined, petitioner would have to provide
documentation verifying that her ex-husband did not reside with
her during the years in issue. The record does not reflect that
petitioner ever brought forth any such documentation.
It is not unreasonable for respondent to require a taxpayer
to corroborate claims regarding a dispositive and unresolved
fact. See Baker v. Commissioner, 83 T.C. 822, 830 (1984),
vacated and remanded on another issue 787 F.2d 637 (D.C. Cir.
1986); Pan Pac. Trading Corp. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-
101, affd. 73 F.3d 370 (9th Cir. 1995). Respondent was entitled
to defend against inconsistent results by holding both petitioner
and Mr. Sherbo liable for the deficiency until the facts
established which party was entitled to the earned income credit
at issue. See Maggie Management Co. v. Commissioner, 108 T.C.
430, 446 (1997).
Respondent maintained his position only so long as it was
necessary to resolve the whipsaw situation. When Mr. Sherbo
defaulted on the notices of deficiency, respondent regarded the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011