- 34 - payments represented a return of petitioners’ investment and are not includable income as interest simply because the payments were reported as interest on statements of the investment accounts. Cf. Burnet v. Logan, 283 U.S. 404 (1931). Petitioners have not addressed or provided any information regarding the remaining $61 of interest reported on the return of the OMK Family Trust that respondent determined in the notice of deficiency was taxable to petitioners. Respondent’s determination in the notice of deficiency is presumptively correct, and petitioners have the burden of proving that no part of the amounts received constituted interest or was otherwise not taxable to them. Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111 (1933). Section 7491(a)(1) does not shift the burden of proof to respondent. Consequently, $61 of interest determined in the notice of deficiency is to be included in petitioners’ income. III. Petitioners Had Additional Capital Gain of $103,791 From the Sale of Mutual Fund Shares Respondent also determined that petitioners had $123,791 of unreported capital gain. The explanation in the notice of deficiency issued to petitioners stated that petitioners’ capital gain was increased because the OMK trusts are disregarded for 12(...continued) T.C. Memo. 1993-393, affd. without published opinion 72 F.3d 135 (9th Cir. 1995); see also Premji v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-304, affd. 139 F.3d 912 (10th Cir. 1998).Page: Previous 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011