- 26 -
accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a).24
OPINION
Petitioners bear the burden of proving that respondent erred
in making the determinations in the notice that remain for our
consideration.25 Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111,
115 (1933). We address below the standard of proof required of
petitioners in order to satisfy that burden with respect to the
December 2, 1999 transaction and the June 14, 2000 transaction.
Before considering the December 2, 1999 transaction and the
June 14, 2000 transaction, we shall (1) summarize certain princi-
ples applicable in determining whether those transactions consti-
tute sales for tax purposes by petitioners of lots 5 and 12 and
(2) evaluate certain evidence in the record on which petitioners
rely.
Certain Applicable Principles
The determination of whether a purported sale is a sale for
tax purposes is a factual determination, Derr v. Commissioner, 77
24Respondent made certain additional determinations in the
notice with respect to petitioners’ taxable year 1999 that
petitioners do not dispute. Certain of those determinations were
favorable to petitioners, and certain others were unfavorable.
In addition, respondent made certain additional determinations in
the notice with respect to petitioners’ taxable years 1999 and
2000, the resolution of which flows automatically from the
resolution of certain other determinations in the notice.
25Petitioners do not claim that the burden of proof shifts
to respondent under sec. 7491(a). We conclude that the burden of
proof does not shift to respondent under that section.
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007