- 15 -
occurred, which increased the deficiency for that year. See Rule
142(a). While we recognized that the Commissioner had failed to
carry his burden of proving that the couple had realized any gain
on the sale of the paintings, we treated the taxpayers’ assertion
that their joint basis was $100,000 as an admission that their
joint basis was no greater than that, and we found that the
husband had realized a gain to the extent that his share of the
$250,000 of proceeds exceeded his share of the admitted $100,000
basis.
We shall likewise accept petitioner’s Schedule D entries as
admissions that his bases in his interests in Oxford and Kemper
did not exceed $2,962 and $1,288, respectively, and that he
realized gains on the sales of those two assets of at least $444
and $219, respectively. Moreover, because of petitioner’s
superior position with respect to access to information as to his
bases in those assets, we place on him the burden of coming
forward with evidence showing a basis greater than zero in either
asset. We are free to do so because we have not invariably held
that, when the burden is on the Commissioner to prove that the
taxpayer underreported his income from sales, the Commissioner
must come forward with evidence showing both unreported receipts
and the absence of offsetting costs or deductions above those
allowed by the Commissioner. For example, in Franklin v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-184, we sustained an addition to
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011