- 6 - Respondent contends that petitioner has failed to carry his burden of proof and that the matters are not properly before the Court. We agree with respondent’s conclusion and in part with respondent’s analysis. Firstly, at trial we repeatedly asked petitioner whether the change in characterization of the income would make any difference to the decision to be entered for any of the years in the instant case. Neither at trial nor on brief did petitioner direct our attention to any way in which the decision would be affected, and the Court has not found in the record any way in which the decision would be affected, except to possibly increase a deficiency because of self-employment tax. Under these circumstances, we decline to determine in the instant case whether the income items are properly Schedule C items. See Chevron Corp. v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 590 (1992); LTV Corp. v. Commissioner, 64 T.C. 589 (1975). Secondly, petitioner has not directed our attention to, and we have not found, any evidence in the record from which we might fairly conclude that it is more likely than not that either of petitioner’s Fidelity Investment income items for 1981 and 1982 is income from a trade or business then carried on by petitioner. Thirdly, the parties’ stipulations explicitly provide that the 1981 income item reported by petitioner as Schedule C grossPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011