- 11 -
supporting any particular figure or amount. Lastly, as to the
disputed deduction, the broad, generalized testimony advanced
lacks the probative value sought under the credible evidence
standard.
Second, even where credible evidence is introduced, the
taxpayer must establish, as a prerequisite to any shift under
section 7491(a)(1), that the taxpayer has complied under section
7491(a)(2) with all substantiation requirements, has maintained
all required records, and has cooperated with reasonable requests
for witnesses, information, documents, meetings, and interviews.
H. Conf. Rept. 105-599, supra at 239-240, 1998-3 C.B. at 993-994.
The estate in its burden of proof argument makes no attempt to
address specifically whether it has satisfied these conditions.
The record also suggests that at least as to certain issues,
namely valuation, it has not. Thus, the estate has not shown
compliance with section 7491(a)(2).
Third, this Court has noted in earlier cases the potential
impropriety of shifting the burden under section 7491(a) where
the taxpayers did not raise the issue prior to the briefing
process. E.g., Menard, Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-
207; Estate of Aronson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-189.
The rationale for this concern rests upon the possible prejudice
to the Commissioner’s ability to introduce evidence specifically
directed toward cooperation during the audit period. Menard,
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