Terry Fred Burnham - Page 5

                                        - 4 -                                         
          Jackson indicating that a taxable distribution was made to                  
          petitioner of $8,000.                                                       
               Petitioner’s Federal income tax return for the taxable year            
          2000 was signed and submitted to the Internal Revenue Service on            
          November 16, 2004.  Petitioner did not request an extension of              
          time to file his 2000 return.  On the return, petitioner reported           
          $28,102 on line 16a (total pensions & annuities) and $8,000 on              
          line 16b (taxable amount).3  Petitioner further claimed a                   
          dependency exemption deduction for Lupe Chitwood.                           
                                     Discussion                                       
               Generally, the burden of proof is on the taxpayer.  Rule               
          142(a)(1).  However, if the taxpayer satisfies the limitations              
          under section 7491(a)(2) and introduces credible evidence with              


               3  The record is not clear as to the source of the amounts             
          reported on the return or the exact adjustments made by                     
          respondent.  It appears that the $28,102 reported on line 16a is            
          the sum of (1) the disability pension from CFITF of $20,102 and             
          (2) the annuity distribution from Jackson of $8,000.  While it              
          appears that petitioner reported the $8,000 distribution from               
          Jackson as taxable income on line 16b, the record does not                  
          contain a schedule of adjustments which would normally be                   
          attached to the notice of deficiency.  In his pretrial                      
          memorandum, respondent lists as an issue the question of whether            
          petitioner received a taxable distribution of $8,000 from                   
          Jackson.  Respondent further indicates that the issue was                   
          conceded by petitioner.                                                     
               At trial petitioner initially appeared to agree with the               
          concession.  He later explained, however, that he agreed that he            
          received the $8,000 distribution from Jackson but that he did not           
          agree that the distribution represented taxable income.  Thus, we           
          consider whether the $8,000 distribution received from Jackson              
          represents taxable income.                                                  





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011