-7-
home over the Christmas holiday and to buy Christmas presents for
them and members of the extended family. They assert that the
$2,500 was wired to them from Ms. McDermott’s mother to apply
towards their daughter’s college tuition for the fall semester.
They assert that the $831 deposit came from a nontaxable source.
We need not decide which party bears the burden of proof in
this case in that we can and do decide this case on the basis of
the record.4 Petitioners generally support their assertions as
to the tax status of the deposits by their respective testimony
and the introduction of certain documentary evidence. On the
basis of the record at hand, we are persuaded that none of the
six deposits are includable in petitioners’ 1995 gross income.
We have considered all of the parties’ arguments and reject those
arguments not discussed herein as meritless.
Decision will be entered
under Rule 155.
4 Sec. 7491 does not apply to this case because the
examination of petitioners’ tax return commenced before July 22,
1998, the effective date of that section. Internal Revenue
Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, Pub. L. 105-206,
sec. 3001(a), 112 Stat. 726.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Last modified: May 25, 2011