Jerry J. and Susan N. LeBouef - Page 16




                                       - 16 -                                         
               Similarly, in Bukove v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1991-76,              
          the taxpayer claimed investment tax credits attributable to                 
          various partnership interests, some TEFRA and some non-TEFRA.  We           
          stated:                                                                     
                    To the extent that the claimed ITC is attributable                
               to one or more non-TEFRA partnerships, petitioner must                 
               prove (1) the identity of the partnership through which                
               the ITC is claimed; (2) the identity, cost, and date                   
               placed in service of any qualifying property; and (3)                  
               whether the partnership used the property in a trade or                
               business. * * *                                                        
                    Petitioner introduced no evidence regarding the                   
               source of the ITC’s, other than * * * [petitioner’s                    
               return preparer’s] blanket assertion that they were                    
               generated by Dickinson and NDL.  Petitioner introduced                 
               no evidence to establish what qualifying property was                  
               acquired, that the property was ever placed in service,                
               or that the property was actually used in a trade or                   
               business.  No partnership records were presented and no                
               partnership personnel testified.  Rather, petitioner’s                 
               evidence consisted of vague testimony * * * [Id.]                      
               With respect to the case at bar, the record is equally                 
          bereft of evidence that could provide a factual underpinning of             
          the type demanded in Johnson v. Commissioner, supra, and Bukove             
          v. Commissioner, supra.  Contrary to petitioners’ assertions, it            
          has long been held that statements made in tax returns do not               
          constitute proof of the transactions underlying the reported                
          figures.  Seaboard Commercial Corp. v. Commissioner, 28 T.C.                
          1034, 1051 (1957); Halle v. Commissioner, 7 T.C. 245, 247, 249-             
          250 (1946), affd. 175 F.2d 500 (2d Cir. 1949).  Accordingly, the            
          Schedule K-1 on which petitioners rely cannot be regarded as more           
          than an assertion of their claim.  We also note that Mr. Aulisio            





Page:  Previous  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011