- 9 -
Respondent contends that Arcanum was not a small partnership
for purposes of section 6231(a) because Arcanum’s partners Arthur
Stern Jr. Account # 2 and Stuart D. Grodd IRA Account were
trusts. Respondent points out that Arcanum’s 1990 return
included a Schedule K-1 for a trust named Arthur Stern Jr.
Account # 2, and that Arcanum’s 1990 and 1993 returns each
included a Schedule K-1 for Stuart D. Grodd IRA Account, which
was identified as a trust on the Schedules K-1.
Since petitioner contends that we have jurisdiction to
decide whether Arcanum had partnership losses, he must prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that jurisdiction exists, Irwin v.
VA, 874 F.2d 1092, 1096 (5th Cir. 1989), affd. 498 U.S. 89
(1990); Wheeler’s Peachtree Pharmacy, Inc. v. Commissioner, 35
T.C. 177, 180 (1960); La. Naval Stores, Inc. v. Commissioner, 18
B.T.A. 533, 536-537 (1929), that is, that each of Arcanum’s
partners was an individual or an estate.
Petitioner points out that Arcanum checked a box on its
1990, 1993, and 1994 returns indicating that it was not subject
to the TEFRA partnership procedures and contends that the returns
establish that fact. We disagree. Tax returns do not establish
the truth of the facts stated in them. Lawinger v. Commissioner,
103 T.C. 428, 438 (1994); Wilkinson v. Commissioner, 71 T.C. 633,
639 (1979); Roberts v. Commissioner, 62 T.C. 834, 837 (1974).
However, statements in a tax return signed by the taxpayer are
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011