- 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 proof
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011