- 7 -
petitioners’ timely joint petitions for redetermination of their
deficiencies for 1997 and 1998. Mr. McClelland’s ability to
challenge Ms. McClelland’s assertion of innocent spouse relief is
likewise provided by this case’s status as a deficiency
proceeding. See Corson v. Commissioner, supra at 365.
B. Burden of Proof
The taxpayer generally bears the burden of proof with
certain exceptions. Rule 142(a); Alt v. Commissioner, 119 T.C.
306, 311 (2002), affd. 101 Fed. Appx. 34 (6th Cir. 2004); Jonson
v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 106, 113 (2002), affd. 353 F.3d 1181
(10th Cir. 2003); Baumann v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-31.
Rule 142 presumes that the taxpayer and the Commissioner are
adversaries. See, e.g., Funk v. Commissioner, 123 T.C. 213, 216
(2004); Barnes v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-266. Here, Mr.
McClelland, instead of the Commissioner, is opposing Ms.
McClelland’s claim for innocent spouse relief.2 Additionally,
Ms. McClelland argues that Mr. McClelland’s opposition to her
request for innocent spouse relief is a new matter because he
signed the joint petitions in which it was asserted that she was
an innocent spouse as an affirmative defense and he did not
timely inform Ms. McClelland before trial that he intended to
oppose her request. See Rule 142(a). We believe that a taxpayer
2Sec. 7491(a) is not applicable here because it is only
relevant in deciding whether the burden of proof shifts to the
respondent.
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