- 11 -
burden of proof on respondent, we conclude that respondent has
offered insufficient contrary evidence to overcome petitioners’
evidence.7 Accordingly, respondent has failed to sustain his
burden of proof.
Decision will be entered
for petitioners.
7 In our original opinion, we noted: “Even if the burden of
proof were placed on respondent, we would decide the issue [as to
the deductibility of the tax payments] in his favor based on the
preponderance of the evidence.” T.C. Memo. 2002-6 n.4. This
statement reflected this Court’s conclusion that Mr. Griffin’s
testimony was not only insufficient to support petitioners’ claim
to ordinary and necessary business deductions but indeed
undermined their claim, insofar as Mr. Griffin’s testimony
convinced us that his relevant business activities were conducted
entirely through S corporations. In light of the Court of
Appeals’ conclusion that Mr. Griffin’s testimony was sufficient
to support the claimed deductions, the preponderance of the
evidence, thus evaluated, is no longer in respondent’s favor.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Last modified: May 25, 2011