- 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 gross
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011