- 17 -
The burden of overcoming the presumption of correctness
in a deduction case properly rests with the taxpayer,
who is the best source of information for determining
entitlement to the claimed deductions. In a deduction
case, therefore, we apply the general rule of not
looking behind the notice of deficiency to determine
whether it is arbitrary. * * *
Consequently, the estate bears the burden of proving the amount
of its section 2053(a)(3) deduction.
The Law of the Case Doctrine
The estate argues that it has met its burden of establishing
the amount of its section 2053(a)(3) deduction because the
parties stipulated to the fact, “With interest, Exxon in the
Jarvis Christian litigation claimed $2,482,719.00 from decedent.”
The estate argues that this requires that the estate be allowed
to deduct the entire $2,482,719. The estate contends that
section 2053(a) and section 20.2053-4, Estate Tax Regs., provide
for a deduction for the amount of an enforceable claim against
the estate and not for the value of the claim.
We note that the estate, in relying on its interpretation of
the opinion of the Court of Appeals, has decided not to follow
the Court of Appeals’s guidance that “it is incumbent on each
party to supply the Tax Court with relevant evidence of predeath
facts and occurrences supporting the value of the Exxon claim
advocated by that party.” Estate of Smith v. Commissioner, 198
F.3d at 526. Nor does the estate give any deference to the Court
of Appeals’s statement that “we are also persuaded that the
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011