- 9 -
determined by respondent. Respondent did not agree that this
document was accurate, and Mr. Comey neither explained how the
document was prepared nor offered any evidence that it was
reliable.3 In light of petitioners’ failures to allege error in
the petition and to offer reliable, credible evidence at trial,
we find that respondent’s calculation of basis was correct and
that a capital gain of $90,788 was realized on the sale of the
Capital Fund shares in 1991. See Rule 34(b)(4) (petition shall
contain clear and concise assignments of each and every error
taxpayer alleges Commissioner committed, and any issue not raised
in assignments of error shall be deemed to be conceded); Rule
142(a) (taxpayers generally have burden of proof); 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).
The only error alleged by Mrs. Comey’s petition is that the
gain realized on the sale of the Capital Fund shares should be
included in Landtrak’s income rather than Mrs. Comey’s income.
More particularly, petitioners assert that on January 1, 1987,
approximately 4 years before the Capital Fund shares were sold,
3 For example, although the document prepared by Mr. Comey
appears to be based in part on the history of Capital Fund
distributions from 1974-87, petitioners did not offer any
evidence concerning how and when Mrs. Comey originally acquired
Capital Fund shares, what Mrs. Comey’s basis was in the shares
first acquired, or whether Mrs. Comey reported reinvested Capital
Fund distributions as income on her Federal income tax returns.
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