Cristeen B. Comey - Page 3




                                        - 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