- 5 -
In an answer filed June 7, 2006, respondent conceded to
petitioner’s deduction of $22,349 as alimony for the “unallocated
family support payments.” However, respondent raised new issues
by alleging that petitioner is not entitled to the two claimed
dependency exemption deductions and to the child tax credit.
Discussion
I. Burden of Proof
Generally, the burden of proof is on the taxpayer. Rule
142(a)(1). Under section 7491, the burden of proof may shift to
the Commissioner if the taxpayer produces credible evidence with
respect to any factual issue relevant to ascertaining the
taxpayer’s liability. Sec. 7491(a)(1).
Where the Commissioner raises a new matter or claims an
increase in the deficiency, however, the burden of proof remains
upon the Commissioner. Rule 142(a)(1); Achiro v. Commissioner,
77 T.C. 881, 889-890 (1981); Burris v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
2001-49; Jamerson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1986-302.
Thus, the burden of proof is on respondent with respect to
the new issues raised in the answer filed with the Court (i.e.,
the dependency exemption deductions and the child tax credit).
Nonetheless, our findings and ultimate decision in this case are
based on a preponderance of the evidence.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011