John C. and Joan F. Stukes - Page 4




                                        - 3 -                                         
          allowable.  On the basis of those determinations, respondent                
          calculated a deficiency in tax of $7,908 and on July 5, 2005,               
          sent petitioners a notice of deficiency.  Petitioners timely                
          petitioned this Court for a redetermination of the disallowed               
          amounts.                                                                    
                                    Discussion                                        
               As a general rule, the Commissioner’s determinations in the            
          notice of deficiency are presumed correct, and the burden of                
          proving an error is on the taxpayer.  Rule 142(a); Welch v.                 
          Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933).  However, pursuant to                  
          section 7491(a), the burden of proof with respect to any factual            
          issue relating to ascertaining the liability for tax shifts to              
          the Commissioner if the taxpayer:  (1) Maintained adequate                  
          records; (2) satisfied the substantiation requirements; (3)                 
          cooperated with the Commissioner’s agents; and (4) during the               
          Court proceeding introduced credible evidence with respect to the           
          factual issue involved.  Except for the substantiation                      
          requirements for some items, discussed infra, we find that                  
          petitioners satisfied these requirements.                                   
          Issue 1. Loss From Farming                                                  
               During 2002, petitioners owned a 45-acre farm in Williamson            
          County, Texas.  In calculating their 2002 gross income,                     
          petitioners included a loss of $20,116, which was supported by              
          Schedule F, Profit or Loss From Farming.  The Schedule F does not           







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007