- 35 -
intended gift. We understand you have been unable to
locate a copy of this deed in your files.
Mr. Marceron enclosed with Mr. Marceron’s January 8, 2002 letter
(1) a $10,500 check payable to TMC and (2) a copy of KQC’s deed.
Respondent issued respective notices of deficiency (notices)
to the Kaplans, the Marcerons, and the Caldwells. (We shall
refer to the respective notices to the Kaplans, the Marcerons,
and the Caldwells as petitioners’ respective notices.) In
petitioners’ respective notices, respondent determined, inter
alia, to disallow petitioners’ respective claimed noncash chari-
table contribution deductions. In petitioners’ respective
notices, respondent further determined that the Kaplans, the
Marcerons, and the Caldwells are liable for the accuracy-related
penalty under section 6662(a).
OPINION
Although respondent must have commenced respondent’s exami-
nation of petitioners’ respective returns after July 22, 1998,
petitioners in each of these cases do not address section
7491(a). On the record before us, we conclude that petitioners’
burden of proof in each of these cases, see Rule 142(a); Welch v.
Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933), does not shift to respondent
under section 7491(a) with respect to such petitioners’ respec-
tive deficiencies in tax that respondent determined.10 Moreover,
10On the record before us, we also find that petitioners in
each of these cases have failed to carry their burden of estab-
(continued...)
Page: Previous 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011