Lee G. Gale - Page 33




                                       - 33 -                                         
          in 1992 is not in the record), and $103,175.05 as of 1992 in                
          connection with the so-called Emerald Bay matter.  The record               
          shows that Lurie & Zepeda claimed additional amounts (exceeding             
          the entire United Ready Mixed settlement proceeds) for                      
          contingency fees in the United Ready Mixed matter and hourly and            
          contingency fees in numerous other matters.  The specific amounts           
          owing for each matter as of the end of 1992 and the nature of               
          each of the matters were not established at trial.                          
               Respondent contends that we should allow a deduction only              
          for the fees petitioner proved at trial would have been                     
          deductible if paid without contest.  Respondent argues that                 
          petitioner failed to establish an entitlement to a deduction                
          exceeding the hourly fees and costs claimed by Lurie & Zepeda as            
          of November 30, 1992, in connection with the United Ready Mixed             
          matter ($348,114.21).                                                       
               We agree with respondent that the record is incomplete.                
          However, petitioner does not bear the burden of proof here.                 
          Respondent created this issue by withdrawing his trial concession           
          that the United Ready Mixed settlement proceeds are not taxable             
          in 1992.  As a result of respondent’s change of position after              
          the completion of the trial, petitioner did not have a full and             
          fair opportunity to introduce evidence to establish the                     
          deductibility of the amounts claimed by Lurie & Zepeda.  It is              
          appropriate for respondent to bear the burden of proof on new               







Page:  Previous  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011