- 18 -
audit of Gold Coast by DHS which led Gold Coast and petitioners
to file amended tax returns for 2001 and 2002. The allegations
in paragraph 8 clearly bear a relationship to the issues in this
case. The allegations in paragraph 8 are therefore best left to
a determination on the merits, and we will deny petitioners’
amended motion to strike. See Estate of Jephson v. Commissioner,
supra at 1003.
III. Petitioners’ Motion To Shift the Burden of Proof
Petitioners argue that if their motion to dismiss for lack
of jurisdiction is not granted, the burden of proof should be
shifted to respondent. As best we can tell, petitioners seem to
argue that the burden of proof should be shifted to respondent
with regard to all issues in dispute. In support of their
motion, petitioners rely on Weimerskirch v. Commissioner, 596
F.2d 358 (9th Cir. 1979), revg. 67 T.C. 672 (1977), and, as
mentioned supra, Shea v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 183 (1999).4
Under Rule 142(a)(1), the burden of proof shall be upon the
petitioner, except as otherwise provided by statute or determined
by the Court; and except that, in respect of any new matter,
4 Petitioners also rely on Scar v. Commissioner, 814 F.2d
1363 (9th Cir. 1987), revg. 81 T.C. 855 (1983). As discussed
supra, the relevant portions of Scar relate to the issue of
jurisdiction and not to the burden of proof.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011