- 5 -
tier 1 benefits in some amount, and in the second instance
whether or not he in fact did receive such benefits. However,
there may be countless reasons why petitioner should not have
received tier 1 benefits in the year in issue, and this specific
factual issue was not addressed at trial by either party. Even
if we were to accept petitioner’s testimony as to the division of
the benefits into tier 1 and tier 2 benefits, we would have no
way of determining the amount of the tier 2 benefits which would
be includable in gross income.
We are left with the fact that petitioner has admitted
receiving income in the amount of $19,844.96, as reflected in the
Form RRB-1099-R, and that he admits that he did not properly
report this amount on his tax return.1 Furthermore, he has
presented no reliable evidence that the Form RRB-1099-R is
incorrect.2 We therefore sustain respondent’s determination, as
modified by his concession, that petitioner received unreported
gross income from the RRB benefits in the amount of $6,554.96.
1Pursuant to petitioner’s version of the facts in his
testimony, at least a portion of the benefits should have been
included in gross income on his return.
2Sec. 7491(a) does not shift the burden of proof to
respondent in this case because petitioner has provided no
credible evidence with respect to the nature of the benefits he
received. Sec. 7491(a)(1). Furthermore, sec. 6201(d) does not
impose any evidentiary burden on respondent because petitioner
has admitted receiving the item of income at issue.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011