Estate of Frazier Jelke III, Deceased, Wachovia Bank, N.A., f.k.a. First Union National Bank, Personal Representative - Page 9

                                        - 9 -                                         


               If, in any court proceeding, the taxpayer introduces                   
               credible evidence with respect to any factual issue                    
               relevant to ascertaining the liability of the taxpayer                 
               for any tax imposed under subtitle A or B, the                         
               Secretary shall have the burden of proof with respect                  
               to such issue.                                                         
               As a prerequisite to the shifting of the burden under                  
          section 7491(a) a taxpayer must:  (1) Comply with statutory                 
          substantiation and record-keeping requirements, sec.                        
          7491(a)(2)(A) and (B); (2) cooperate with reasonable requests by            
          the Commissioner for “witnesses, information, documents,                    
          meetings, and interviews”, sec. 7491(a)(2)(B); and (3) in cases             
          of partnerships, corporations, and trusts, meet the net worth               
          requirements set forth in section 7430(c)(4)(A)(ii), sec.                   
          7491(a)(2)(C).  Taxpayers bear the burden of showing that these             
          requirements are met.  Higbee v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 438, 440-           
          441 (2001); H. Conf. Rept. 105-599, at 240 (1998), 1998-3 C.B.              
          747, 994; S. Rept. 105-174, at 45 (1998), 1998-3 C.B. 537, 581.             
               The estate contends that it has complied with or met the               
          requirements and that it has presented credible evidence in the             
          form of its expert’s report and the stipulated facts and                    
          exhibits.  The evidentiary posture presented in this case is                
          similar to that in Estate of Deputy v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.             
          2003-176.  No fact witnesses were called to testify in this case.           
          As in Estate of Deputy, the parties here have stipulated the                
          operative facts and documents, and the testimony presented at               
          trial consisted of the cross-examination of the parties’ tendered           



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011