- 3 -
These cases having been consolidated for the purposes of
trial, briefing, and opinion, petitioners assert that the
foregoing items were instead the income of Landtrak Development
Ltd. (Landtrak), a C corporation related to petitioners.
We hold for respondent, for the reasons set forth below.2
For convenience, we combine our findings and opinion with respect
to each petitioner and issue.
Procedural Background
Before we set forth our findings and our discussion of the
substantive issues, we note that petitioners have repeatedly
failed to comply with the deadlines set by this Court. This
conduct has led to a lengthy delay in the resolution of these
cases.
2 In the notice to petitioner Cristeen B. Comey, respondent
also determined that Mrs. Comey received taxable Social Security
income in the amounts of $2,831 and $1 for 1991 and 1992,
respectively. Petitioners have stipulated, and we find, that Mrs.
Comey received this income.
Respondent also determined that Mrs. Comey was not entitled
to a $2,071 real estate tax deduction claimed for 1992, for lack
of substantiation. Petitioners did not address this issue at
trial or offer any evidence relating to it. Accordingly,
petitioners have failed to meet their burden of proof, and we
find that Mrs. Comey is not entitled to the claimed deduction.
See Rule 142(a) (burden of proof generally on taxpayer); Rule
149(b) (party’s failure to produce evidence, in support of issue
of fact as to which party has burden of proof, may be ground for
determination of issue against party); Interstate Transit Lines
v. Commissioner, 319 U.S. 590, 593 (1943) (burden of clearly
showing right to claimed deduction is on taxpayer).
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