-10-
contribution that petitioners each carried forward to 1999 and
2000. Petitioners timely filed petitions claiming that
respondent erred in reducing the $475,000 valuation to $76,200,
even though they, through TRY, had paid $75,000 for the subject
property6 only 17 months before the date of donation.
OPINION
The sole issue in this case is the fair market value of the
subject property on October 29, 1998, the date TRY donated the
subject property to TRRC. Respondent asserts the subject
property had a value of $76,200, while petitioners maintain the
subject property had a value of $475,000, even though they,
through TRY, purchased the subject property and personal property
17 months earlier for $75,000. We begin with the burden of
proof.
I. Burden of Proof
In general, the Commissioner’s determinations in the
deficiency notice are presumed correct, and the taxpayer bears
the burden of proving that the Commissioner’s determinations are
in error. See Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115
(1933). The burden of proof may shift to the Commissioner under
certain circumstances, however, if the taxpayer introduces
credible evidence and establishes that he or she substantiated
items, maintained required records, and fully cooperated with the
6We note that petitioners paid $75,000 for the subject
property plus personal property that remained. The personal
property component is not in dispute.
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