- 24 -
adjustment, sec. 1314. Secs. 1311-1314; Fong v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1998-181. The party seeking to invoke the mitigation
provisions bears the burden of showing that all requirements are
met. Fruit of the Loom, Inc. v. Commissioner, 72 F.3d 1338, 1341
(7th Cir. 1996), affg. T.C. Memo. 1994-492; O’Brien v. United
States, 766 F.2d 1038, 1042 (7th Cir. 1985).
Petitioners do not discuss whether they meet the
requirements for the mitigation provisions to apply.
Determination for purposes of the mitigation provision includes
four things: (1) A decision by the Tax Court or a judgment,
decree, or other order by any court of competent jurisdiction,
which has become final; (2) a closing agreement made under
section 7121; (3) a final disposition by the Commissioner of a
claim for refund; and (4) under regulations prescribed by the
Commissioner, an agreement for purposes of this part, signed by
the Commissioner and a taxpayer, relating to the liability of the
taxpayer (or the person for whom he or she acts) in respect of a
tax under this subtitle for any taxable period. Sec. 1313(a).
None of these events has occurred. Thus, the first requirement
is not met; i.e., there is no determination by the Commissioner.
Petitioners did not show that the second requirement is met
because there is no showing that the determination falls within
one of the specified “circumstances of adjustment” or
“doubling-up” situations described in section 1312.
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011