- 6 -
Yantari. However, petitioners attached to that return Form 1099-
A, Acquisition or Abandonment of Secured Property (Form 1099-A),
which the bank issued to petitioners and which showed that, on a
date that is not legible,4 the outstanding principal balance of
the loan secured by the Yantari was $137,142. The following was
written by hand at the bottom of Form 1099-A that was attached to
petitioners’ joint return: “Taxpayer Was Insolvent - No Tax
Consequence” (written statement).
Respondent timely issued to petitioners a notice of defi-
ciency for 1993 (notice). In the notice, respondent determined,
inter alia, to increase petitioners’ income by $42,142 for
“RELIEF OF DEBT” and by $28,629 for “DISPOSITION OF F/V YANTARNI
[sic]”. Respondent also determined in the notice to impose an
accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a).
Discussion
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).
4Although the date on Form 1099-A is illegible, the parties
stipulated that the date for determining discharge of indebted-
ness income is Feb. 8, 1993.
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