- 11 -
(1) the taxpayer has made a representation or
reported an item for tax purposes in one year,
(2) the Commissioner has acquiesced in or relied
on that fact for that year, and
(3) the taxpayer desires to change the
representation, previously made, in a later year after
the statute of limitations on assessments bars
adjustments for the initial year.
Id. at 212; see also LeFever v. Commissioner, supra at 543
(quoting Beltzer v. United States, supra). Because the duty of
consistency is an affirmative defense, respondent bears the
burden of proving that it applies. See Rule 142(a).
Throughout the life of the partnership, petitioner
consistently represented to respondent that the ranch was
partnership property. Petitioner did so by causing the
partnership to file tax returns claiming depreciation deductions
with respect to the ranch and by asserting the ranch was
partnership property during audits of the partnership’s Federal
income tax returns. Consistent with the partnership’s reporting
position, petitioners filed individual Federal income tax returns
for each of the taxable years 1982 through 1987 claiming
petitioner’s distributive loss from the partnership. The loss
was calculated, in part, by deducting depreciation on ranch
buildings and other improvements. When petitioners filed their
Federal income tax return for 1988, however, they changed their
representation with respect to the ranch, taking the position
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011