- 15 - Commissioner, 87 T.C. 305, 322-323 n.17 (1986); Hustead v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-205. “[T]he placement of the burden of proof * * * would be controlling only if, as a matter of law, the evidence presented by the parties must be deemed of equal weight.” Brookfield Wire Co. v. Commissioner, 667 F.2d 551, 553 n.2 (1st Cir. 1981), affg. T.C. Memo. 1980-321. As this Court has stated: “except for extraordinary burdens (e.g., in fraud cases), the burden of proof is merely a ‘tie-breaker’ * * * [it] is irrelevant unless the evidence is in equipoise.” Steiner v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-122. Although assignment of the burden of proof is potentially relevant at the outset of any case, where (as in this case) the Court finds that the undisputed facts favor one of the parties, the case is not determined on the basis of which party bore the burden of proof, and the assignment of burden of proof becomes irrelevant.10 Therefore, we have no need to assign the burden of proof with respect to the constructive dividend and liquidating dividend issues. 10 The same is true where there is conflicting evidence with respect to a particular item of income or expense, but a preponderance of the evidence favors one of the parties. See Kean v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 575, 601 n.40 (1988) (“Our determinations have been made on the basis of the preponderance of the evidence; accordingly, it is immaterial * * * who bears the burden of proof. Deskins v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 305, 323 n.17 (1986).”).Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011