In Risan v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2026-78, TC here at #93, TN here, and GS here [to come], Judge Holmes decided significant factual issues on burden of proof. The key reason I thought this case interesting is that Tax Court Judges often, after noising about burden of proof, will just hold that, in effect, burden of proof is irrelevant to the outcome because the Judge in the particular case has resolved those factual issues by a preponderance of the evidence. That is simply to say that, in the normal case where the preponderance of the evidence standard applies, burden of proof is relevant only if the Judge is in factual equipoise unable to determine whether or not a critical fact is more likely than not. In that state of equipoise, the party with the burden of persuasion loses.
Judge Holmes sets up the discussion at the beginning of the Opinion section (starting at *17, footnote omitted):
We begin with a number of issues for which Mr. Risan presented no evidence or argument, or about which he included only an underdeveloped argument in his brief. Taxpayers usually bear the burden of proof in cases before us. Rule 142(a). The Code does sometimes shift this burden to the Commissioner. See § 7491(a). But when neither party presented evidence in these cases, we simply find that Mr. Risan did not comply with the Code’s recordkeeping requirements and did not cooperate with the Commissioner’s reasonable requests for information. This means that, for a great many issues, we find against Mr. Risan and for the Commissioner.
Other JAT comments:
1. Judge Holmes also addressed the statute of limitations. Judge Holmes found (i) there was a 25% omission in the years involved invoking the six-year statute of limitations and (ii) for some of the years during the six-year period, the taxpayer timely signed consents to extend. Judge Holmes said that, although the taxpayer testified that he did not sign the forms, visual review of the forms permitted him to “find it more likely than not that he did sign them.” (*19.) Although Judge Holmes did not say it directly, that finding means that it is more like than not that the taxpayer testified untruthfully (whether or not the taxpayer intended to deceive is a different issue).
