- 34 -
e.g., Gainer v. Commissioner, 893 F.2d 225 (9th Cir. 1990), affg.
T.C. Memo. 1988-416. Petitioner, however, has provided no
evidence that this is the situation here. With respect to
petitioner’s implication that the relevant property in this case
was never placed in service, we note that there is evidence in
the record indicating that Mr. Hoyt and others involved in the
partnerships in fact did sell “phantom” livestock to investors in
certain instances. However, there is also evidence in the
record--including evidence stipulated by the parties--that the
livestock purchased by some investors actually did exist, but
that it was greatly overvalued. Petitioner has presented no
evidence regarding any specific property at issue in this case,
let alone tending to show that such property was never placed in
service. Nor has petitioner shown that any portion of any of the
deficiencies in this case was otherwise not attributable to a
valuation overstatement. Because petitioner bears the burden of
proof in showing respondent’s determinations in the notice of
deficiency to be in error, see Rule 142(a),12 we sustain
respondent’s determination that the deficiencies were
attributable to valuation overstatements.
12See supra note 8.
Page: Previous 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011