- 15 -
theory about respondent’s burden of proof and her Fifth Amendment
privilege.
Petitioner’s assertion that the other party has the burden
of proof is not a sufficient objection to a proposed stipulation.
Rule 91(a) specifically states that “The requirement of
stipulation applies under this Rule without regard to where the
burden of proof may lie with respect to the matters involved.”
See, e.g., Console v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-232.
Petitioner’s argument that Rule 91(f) could not be applied
without violating her Fifth Amendment privilege must be rejected.
The phrase that comes readily to mind was first used by the U.S.
Supreme Court in United States v. Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259, 264
(1927), to wit, a taxpayer may not “draw a conjurer’s circle
around the whole matter” of his or her tax liability. See also
Steinbrecher v. Commissioner, 712 F.2d 195, 198 (5th Cir. 1983),
affg. T.C. Memo. 1983-12; McCoy v. Commissioner, 696 F.2d 1234
(9th Cir. 1983), affg. 76 T.C. 1027 (1981); Edwards v.
Commissioner, 680 F.2d 1268 (9th Cir. 1982), affg. an unreported
decision of this Court; United States v. Carlson, 617 F.2d 518,
523 (9th Cir. 1980). In a civil tax case, the taxpayer must
accept the consequences of asserting the Fifth Amendment and
cannot avoid the burden of proof by claiming the privilege and
attempting to convert “the shield * * * which it was intended to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011