- 8 -
and, therefore, none of the liability was allocable to Indeck
Overseas.4
On September 11, 2002, petitioner filed a Petition for
Readjustment of Partnership Items Under Code Section 6226 with
the Court for a redetermination of the adjustments set forth in
the FPAA. Petitioner alleged, inter alia, that respondent erred
in the determination that the liability shown on the respective
Schedules K-1 for the years in issue is fully allocable to Mr.
Forsythe, and in no part to Indeck Overseas.
Discussion
I. Burden of Proof
As a preliminary matter, petitioner argues that respondent’s
“primary” position, i.e., that the liability reflected on the
Schedules K-1 is nonrecourse, is entitled to the presumption of
correctness, and respondent bears the burden of going forward
with evidence and the burden of persuasion on the “alternative”
position; i.e., that the liability is recourse and fully
allocable to Mr. Forsythe.
We do not find that the resolution of this case depends on
which party has the burden of proof. On the basis of evidence in
the record, we hold that the recourse liability is fully
4 Respondent initially determined in the FPAA that the
liability listed on the Schedules K-1 from the purchase of the
aircraft was a nonrecourse liability, and alternatively
determined that the liability was recourse and fully allocable to
Mr. Forsythe. Respondent has since conceded that this liability
was recourse.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011