-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