- 16 - issues of material fact and that the cases are ripe for disposition on these motions. Before addressing the substantive issues in these cases, we must address two preliminary matters. They are: (1) Whether respondent bears the burden of proof with respect to determining the partners' interests in the partnership, as claimed by the estate; and (2) whether the partnership was terminated for Federal income tax purposes before the years in issue, as claimed by Darwin. The estate argues that respondent bears the burden of proving the partners' interests in the partnership on the ground that both Darwin and respondent rely on an affirma- tive defense. According to the estate, both Darwin and respondent take the position that the State court's findings with respect to a 50-50 partnership interest should not be used for Federal tax purposes for the years at issue "because such allocation would not have 'substantial economic effect' as contemplated by the [sic] I.R.C. �704(b)(2)." In general, a determination made by the Commissioner in a notice of deficiency is presumed correct, and the burden of proof is on the taxpayer to show that the determination is wrong. See Rule 142(a). There are exceptions to this Rule under which the burden of proofPage: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011