- 39 -
not the prize itself.” Petitioners contend that petitioner never
redeemed the entire prize, and, therefore, he never received the
value of the prize. Petitioner testified that the amount
petitioners should have to include in income from the prize
should be no more than 60 percent of the retail price of the
computer.
The record contains no credible evidence showing the fair
market value of the laptop computer or the amount of the store
credit petitioner received from Computerland during 1989. In
particular, no credible evidence was offered to show that the
amount determined by respondent as income from prizes exceeded
the amount of the store credit that petitioner admits he
negotiated and received from Computerland in 1989 in lieu of
receiving the laptop computer. Petitioners have the burden of
proving that the value of the prize was less than the amount
determined by respondent.15 See Rule 142(a); Commissioner v.
15Although neither party raised the issue, sec. 6201(d), as
amended by the Taxpayer Bill of Rights 2, Pub. L. 104-168, sec.
602(a), 110 Stat. 1452, 1463 (1996), became effective on July 30,
1996, and applies to judicial proceedings filed on or after that
date. Sec. 6201(d) provides that if the taxpayer in a court
proceeding asserts a reasonable dispute with respect to income
reported on an information return and fully cooperates with the
Commissioner by providing, within a reasonable period of time,
access to and inspection of all witnesses, information, and
documents within the control of the taxpayer as reasonably
requested, the Commissioner shall have the burden of providing
reasonable and probative information regarding the disputed
deficiency in addition to the information return. In this case,
even if petitioners had shown that the income attributable to the
Computerland prize was reported on a Form 1099 and had asserted
(continued...)
Page: Previous 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011