Robert E. and Lori K. Reichner - Page 6

                                        - 5 -                                         
               In the notice of deficiency, respondent determined the                 
          payments were not alimony and therefore disallowed the claimed              
          deduction.4  Respondent indicated he also issued a notice of                
          deficiency to Ms. Reichner for the taxable year 2002.  Although             
          that notice of deficiency was not made part of the record,                  
          respondent contends that Ms. Reichner did not report the $12,000            
          of monthly payments she received as gross income.  Respondent               
          determined that the payments she received were alimony and                  
          therefore includable in her gross income.  Ms. Reichner did not             
          petition the Tax Court for a redetermination.                               
                                     Discussion                                       
               In general, the Commissioner’s determinations set forth in a           
          notice of deficiency are presumed correct, and the taxpayer bears           
          the burden of showing that the determinations are in error.  Rule           
          142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933).  Pursuant             
          to section 7491(a), the burden of proof as to factual matters               
          shifts to respondent under certain circumstances.  Furthermore,             
          if a taxpayer asserts a reasonable dispute with respect to the              
          income reported on an information return and fully cooperates               

               4 Respondent was unaware of the stipulated order until                 
          shortly before trial.  As a result, the notice of deficiency does           
          not address whether, because of the stipulated order, a portion             
          of the $12,000 was excludable from petitioners’ gross income.  At           
          the end of trial, the Court kept the record open to allow                   
          petitioners to produce a copy of the stipulated order.  When the            
          document was received as part of a supplemental stipulation of              
          facts, the Court admitted the document into evidence and closed             
          the record.                                                                 





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011