- 9 -
unidentified property claimed to have been sold on the install-
ment method and that their installment sale income for 1992
equaled $20,000. The $20,000 of installment sale income claimed
in Form 6252 was then reported as “Section 1231 gain from in-
stallment sales from Form 6252" in Form 4797, Sales of Business
Property, which petitioners attached to their joint return and as
“Gain from Form 4797" in Schedule D of that return.
In the notice of deficiency (notice) issued to petitioners
for the year at issue, respondent determined that Mr. Enyart
received from B&L as consideration for Mr. Enyart’s covenant the
B&L equipment valued at $300,000. Consequently, respondent
determined in the notice to increase petitioners’ taxable income
for 1992 by $300,000.3 Respondent further determined in the
notice that petitioners are liable for 1992 for the accuracy-
related penalty under section 6662(a).
Petitioners bear the burden of proving that the determina-
tions in the notice are erroneous. See Rule 142(a); Welch v.
Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933). That this case was submit-
ted fully stipulated does not change that burden or the effect of
a failure of proof. See Rule 122(b); Borchers v. Commissioner,
95 T.C. 82, 91 (1990), affd. 943 F.2d 22 (8th Cir. 1991).
3As a correlative determination, respondent eliminated the
$20,000 of capital gain that petitioners reported in Schedule D
of their joint return as “Gain from Form 4797" (i.e., “Section
1231 gain from installment sales from Form 6252"). Respondent
also made other correlative determinations.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011