- 22 -
we note that respondent’s position on brief as to each of the
Subject Properties is that the correct fair market value is less
than the amount respondent determined in the notice of
deficiency. Indeed, respondent is now calling for values of the
Quito Property and the Lafayette Property that are almost $1
million below the amounts respondent determined in the notice of
deficiency. See supra table 2. We regard these reductions from
the notice of deficiency amounts as concessions by respondent.
In the instant case, petitioners have the burden of proof only to
the extent that petitioners contend that the correct fair market
values are less than the amounts that respondent contends for on
brief.
It is well settled that the valuation of an asset in a tax
return is an admission by the taxpayer when that valuation is
inconsistent with a later position taken by the taxpayer. See
Waring v. Commissioner, 412 F.2d 800, 801 (3d Cir. 1969), affg.
T.C. Memo. 1968-126; McShain v. Commissioner, 71 T.C. at 1010.
It is equally well settled that such an admission is not
conclusive and that the trier of fact is entitled to determine,
based on all the evidence, what weight, if any, should be given
to the admission. McShain v. Commissioner, supra. That is,
“admission” is not here used in the binding sense of Rule 37(c),
90(f), or 91(e), but rather in the evidentiary sense of rule
801(d)(2) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. In this connection,
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011