- 4 -
grounds that another taxpayer had also claimed K.M. “on their
(sic) tax return,” and that petitioners had not established their
entitlement to the exemption. Accordingly, as respondent
disallowed the exemption with respect to K.M., he correspondingly
adjusted the number of children from two to one for whom
petitioners could claim a child tax credit. Petitioners maintain
their entitlement “by contract and court order” to claim K.M. as
their dependent during the year in issue.
Discussion
In general, the Commissioner’s determination set forth in a
notice of deficiency is presumed correct. Welch v. Helvering,
290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933). In pertinent part, Rule 142(a)(1)
provides the general rule that the burden of proof shall be upon
the petitioner. Rule 142(a)(1). In certain circumstances,
however, if the taxpayer introduces credible evidence with
respect to any factual issue relevant to ascertaining the proper
tax liability, section 7491 shifts the burden of proof to the
Commissioner. Sec. 7491(a)(1); Rule 142(a)(2). Petitioners did
not argue that section 7491 is applicable in this case, nor did
they establish that the burden of proof should shift to
respondent. Petitioners, therefore, bear the burden of proving
that respondent’s determination in the notice of deficiency is
erroneous. See Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering, supra at 115.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007