- 31 -
supporting a valuation of Exxon’s claim that is below the amount
previously allowed as a deduction in the notice of deficiency.
Nevertheless, respondent does not seek to reduce the amount of
the estate’s section 2053(a)(3) deduction for Exxon’s claim below
the $681,840 allowed in the notice of deficiency. On the other
hand, the estate failed to produce evidence of the value of
Exxon’s claim in accordance with the instructions provided by the
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, instead arguing that it
is not required to follow those instructions. Consequently, the
estate has failed to establish that it is entitled to a deduction
in excess of the amount allowed in the notice of deficiency.15
Accordingly, we hold that the estate’s section 2053(a)(3)
deduction is limited to $681,840.
Decision will be entered
under Rule 155.
15This Court has previously noted that, where the burden of
proof rests with the taxpayer, the failure to present sufficient
evidence establishing fair market value generally results in the
taxpayer’s failure to carry his burden of proof and allows
holding for the Commissioner even if the valuation of the
Commissioner’s expert is ultimately rejected. See Anselmo v.
Commissioner, 80 T.C. 872, 884-886 (1983), affd. 757 F.2d 1208
(11th Cir. 1985); Leibowitz v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-243.
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Last modified: May 25, 2011