- 13 -
about bases). At trial, petitioner proffered other documents
that he claimed show his costs of acquiring those assets.
Respondent objected to the receipt of those documents on the
ground that petitioner had violated the Court’s standing pretrial
order by not providing copies of those documents to respondent.
We sustained respondent’s objection, and the documents were not
received into evidence. Petitioner did not testify as to his
costs of acquiring those assets. In short, there is no evidence
in the record to support petitioner’s report on the Schedule D of
costs or other bases of $2,962 and $1,288 for his interests in
Oxford and Kemper, respectively. The Nov. 10 return is merely a
statement of petitioner’s position and is not evidence of the
correctness of the figures and information contained therein.
See Wilkinson v. Commissioner, 71 T.C. 633, 639 (1979).
Respondent bears the burden of proving that petitioner
realized gains of $3,406 and $1,507 on the sales of his interest
in Oxford and Kemper, respectively. The amounts petitioner
reported on the Schedule D as the proceeds from the sales of
those assets were accepted by petitioner at trial and are
confirmed by entries on the Form 1099-B. Respondent has met his
burden of proving receipt of those amounts, and we find
accordingly. There is no evidence, however, supporting
respondent’s claims of zero bases for those assets or from which
we would be justified in making any findings with respect to
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011