- 9 -
tax liability.” Sec. 1.162-17(d)(1)(iii), Income Tax Regs.2
Further, Mr. Lenzen testified that he did not keep records of his
gambling losses. Petitioners’ accountant testified that RAF did
not give him substantiation for the sales expense deduction and
he was not aware of any substantiation in existence for the
corporate card charges. We hold that neither the Lenzens nor RAF
has shown that section 7491(a) applies to shift the burden of
proof to respondent.
Petitioners also argue that the burden of proof shifted to
respondent under Rule 142 because respondent has conceded more
than half the deficiencies determined in the notices of
deficiency. The burden of proof is not placed on the
Commissioner because he concedes a portion of the amount set
forth in the notice of deficiency. See Forte v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1991-36; Natl. Oil Co. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1986-596 (stating: “To charge respondent, as a consequence of
such concessions, with the burden of going forward with the
evidence to prove any amounts not conceded, would discourage
respondent from settling issues on the basis of information
obtained in discovery.”). As petitioners have pointed to no new
matters, increases in deficiencies, or affirmative defenses
2Mr. Lenzen, who owned 59.5 percent of RAF’s stock in 1999,
is related to RAF for this purpose. See sec. 267(b).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011