- 5 - Hunt concurred in them. Murphy claimed the $225,000 payment as an interest deduction on his 1997 tax return. The Commissioner disallowed that deduction, having concluded that Murphy had actually already paid for Hamseh and Desert Spice. He believes that Murphy used the $225,000 to pay off the balance owing for On the Piste.2 He also disallowed various other minor expenses. A notice of deficiency followed, in which the Commissioner asserted an accuracy-related penalty under section 6662 on the entire deficiency.3 The parties originally submitted the case for decision on stipulated facts under Rule 122, but it was then restored to the Court’s general docket for trial. The Murphys are residents of Maryland, as they were when they filed their petition, and trial was held in Baltimore. OPINION We must decide three issues: (1) whether Murphy has successfully shifted the burden of proof onto the IRS; (2) whether Murphy’s payment to Hunt was a deductible interest 2 Given the paperwork that Murphy produced, this might seem to amount to an assertion that Murphy was committing fraud. This would have triggered a larger penalty, but would also have saddled the Commissioner with a heavier burden of proof. 3 Unless otherwise indicated, section references are to the Internal Revenue Code as in effect for the years at issue, and the Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011