-17-
typical tax-protester arguments. These cases can be
characterized as involving taxpayers with a pattern of
noncooperation with the Commissioner and failure to comply with
tax obligations.
Unlike the cited cases, the estate had legitimate concerns
about providing confidential and proprietary business information
that was possibly irrelevant and sought to protect the company by
not producing this information until a court required it. This
is not a tax protester or sham trust case. In fact, the estate
was cooperative throughout the audit and produced most of the
documents respondent requested, including the documents subject
to the summons once the estate lost its motion to quash the
summons. See Estate of Kohler v. United States, supra. Simply
because the estate filed a motion to quash a summons due to
legitimate concerns about the relevancy of the information sought
does not require a finding that the estate failed to cooperate
with respondent.
B. The Estate’s Introduction of Credible Evidence
Respondent also argues that the estate has not produced
credible evidence in support of its position. See sec.
7491(a)(1). Respondent points out that we have previously held
that opinion testimony is not credible evidence to support
shifting the burden of proof. See Estate of Jelke v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-131. Estate of Jelke involved a
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011