Do Mixed Questions of Fact and Law Have Component Facts and Law for § 7491(a) Purposes? (9/11/25)

I address today what may seem to be a fairly mundane issue, but in some contexts might be important. Readers may already be familiar with § 7491(a), here, titled “Burden shifts where taxpayer produces credible evidence.” The “burden” referred to is the burden of proof and specifically the burden of persuasion. The burden of persuasion is not technically relevant until the end of trial when it determines which party loses in the event the trier of fact is in factual equipoise as to some key fact. From a practical perspective, it is important to keep in mind the conventional trial wisdom that triers of fact are rarely in equipoise, so that ultimately the assignment of the burden of persuasion is meaningless in most cases. Setting that aside and accepting the possibility that the burden of persuasion may be outcome-determinative in some cases, parties will often want to know before the beginning of trial which party has the burden of persuasion so that it can prove its case accordingly.

That is what happened in FBA St. Clair Property C, LLC v. Commissioner (T.C. Case 14406-23, here, at docket # 176 9/11/25), where the petitioner in a syndicated conservation easement case filed a motion in limine for the Court to hold that the conditions in § 7491(a) assigned the burden of persuasion to the IRS. The Court denied the motion, reasoning (Slip Op. 3-4):

          Section 7491(a) states that if a taxpayer produces credible evidence with respect to one or more factual issues relevant to the taxpayer’s tax liability, the burden of proof may shift to the Commissioner as to that issue or issues, as long as the taxpayer complies with certain additional requirements. Section 7491(a) only applies if the issue is factual and not “a mixed question of fact and law” which is “primarily a legal question.” Williams v. Commissioner, 120 F.App’x 289, 293 (10th Cir. 2005) (denying that § 7491(a) applies to the issue of whether a payment was a gift for purposes of § 102(a) or instead a bonus), aff’g T.C. Memo. 2003-97. Here, the issue is whether the transaction was a contribution or gift for purposes of Section 170(c), and we hold that this issue is a mixed question of fact and law, and so Section 7491(a) does not shift the burden to the Commissioner. 

Court Reverses District Court on Summary Judgment Holdings That (i) Taxpayer Owed Tax and Was Not Due a Refund and (ii) that, Even if Taxpayer Owed Tax, Taxpayer Did Not Owe Interest Because of Reasonable Cause (11/24/24)

In Rockwater, Inc. v. United States, ___ F.4th ___, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 29135 (11th Cir. 2024), CA11 here and GS here, the Court (i) reversed the district court’s summary judgment holding that the taxpayer’s peanut trailers were not “off-highway transportation vehicles” exempt from the federal excise tax on the first sale, (ii) reversed the district court’s holding on summary judgment that the taxpayer had reasonable cause not paying and thus was not subject to interest on the tax liability, and (iii) let stand the district court’s holding on summary judgment that, even if the taxpayer owed the tax, it had reasonable cause that exempted it from the penalty delinquency penalty. The Government did not appeal the latter penalty holding.

The Government appealed the liability holding ((i) above) but did not separately appeal the interest holding, on the basis that, interest on underpaid tax is mandatory and not subject to any reasonable cause exception; in other words, should the Government prevail on the tax due holding, it necessarily required it to have interest on the tax thus due.

The taxpayer’s liability for the tax offers no particularly interesting tax procedure issues. The case was a straight-forward refund suit. However, I did note one point in the majority opinion that seems to be a feint rather than necessary or even appropriate to explaining its holding.  The Court says at the beginning of its section explaining its holding: 

          In tax refund lawsuits, the IRS Commissioner's assessment has "the support of a presumption of correctness." Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933). "[E]xemptions from taxation are to be construed narrowly." Mayo Found. for Med. Educ. & Rsch. v. United States, 562 U.S. 44, 59-60 (2011) (citation and quotation marks omitted).

The Court reaches its holding of liability for the tax based on straight-forward interpretation of the statute and regulation, with no seeming need for or benefit from any presumption of correctness or narrow construction for exemptions.

This is a similar phenomenon often appearing in Tax Court cases where, sometimes at significant length, the Tax Court thrashes around burden of proof principles sometimes without nuance but then holds that, in any event, that thrashing around was not really necessary because it finds all the dispositive facts by a preponderance of the evidence. (Thus, although not technically necessary, the thrashing around on burden of proof does signal to the Court of Appeals that the Tax Court judge thought about burden of proof, but at the risk that a Court of Appeals may not be particularly impressed if the thrashing around is not consistent with the Court of Appeals’ or some panel member’s thinking on burden of proof.)

Out-of-Time Deficiency Case Declaring NOD Invalid but with ASED Statute Still Open (4/17/24)

In my Federal Tax Procedure book, I note that there may be some procedural foot-fault in the IRS issuance of a notice of deficiency (“NOD”), such as failure to send to the last known address. If the NOD is invalid, any resulting assessment is invalid. I note that a traditional way to challenge the NOD for failure to send to the last known address is by filing an out-of-time petition for redetermination with the Tax Court. If the Tax Court then dismisses for lack of jurisdiction of an untimely petition it may base the decision on the invalidity of the NOD which invalidates the assessment requiring a valid NOD; that will invalidate the assessment. I caution that this gambit might be a pyrrhic victory if the IRS can still issue a new deficiency for which the statute of limitations is still open when the Tax Court dismisses.  (See the Federal Tax Procedure book 2023.2 Practitioner Edition pp. 515-516.)

Phillips v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2024-44, TA here & GS here, is such a case. In Phillips which the Court says is a deficiency case (see p. 1; for more explanation see my note # 1 below explaining how a CDP case morphed into a separate deficiency case), the petition for redetermination of the deficiency was out of time. The Court found the NOD and resulting assessment to have been invalid for failing the last known address requirement. In getting to the holding of invalidity, the Court offers good discussion of the application of the Regulations on last known address including the IRS access to USPS change of address information as a licensee, the IRS’s processes for insuring last known address, and the IRS’s failure to meet the Regulations’ requirements in this case. I will not further address the merits of the Tax Court’s last known address resolution.

I focus instead on the Phillips opinion’s closing shot (p. 15 n. 10):

Nothing in this Opinion should be construed as limiting respondent’s ability to issue petitioner a new notice of deficiency for 2014 that is properly mailed to petitioner’s last known address.

Statistical Sampling for Large Dataset Issues in Tax Litigation (3/23/24)

In Kapur v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2024-28, GS here,  the Court (Judge Pugh) set out the issue as follows (Slip Op. 2, two footnotes omitted):

    Before the Court is petitioners' Motion for Protective Order. The parties dispute whether discovery and trial should be limited to a sample of projects at this stage of litigation. We decline to order sampling for the reasons summarized below. n4
   n4 This appears to be a recurring issue. See, e.g., Phx. Design Grp., Inc. v. Commissioner, No. 4759-22 (T.C. Aug. 29, 2023) (order); Feller v. Commissioner, No. 11581-20 (T.C. Aug. 10, 2023) (order). Respondent referred us to these orders but of course they are not precedential.

The Court reviews (Slip Op. 5) sampling by agreement of the parties (whether encouraged by the Court or not). The Court then says (Slip. Op. 5-6, bold face supplied by JAT):

    Respondent also claims that we do not have discretion to order sampling at the request of petitioners if respondent objects. We disagree: We do have authority to limit discovery (including by ordering sampling) over the objection of a party. See Rule 70(c)(1). Nonetheless, we agree that exercising our discretion to limit the scope of discovery and trial in 6*6 accordance with petitioners' Motion for Protective Order is improper at this stage. The only issue in this case is whether petitioners are entitled to the research credits claimed for the years in issue. Evaluating compliance with section 41 necessarily involves consideration of the underlying business components. And petitioners agree that they have the burden of showing entitlement to the claimed research credits. See Feigh, 152 T.C. at 270. As we have said previously, "[a]bsent an agreement between the parties, project sampling improperly relieves the taxpayer of its burden of proving entitlement to the research credit claimed." Betz v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2023-84, at *77 n.30 (citing Bayer, 850 F. Supp. 2d at 538, 545-46).

As I understand the Court said it can order sampling for discovery purposes but cannot order sampling over IRS objection for resolution of the merits on issues as to which the taxpayer bears the burden of persuasion.

It is not clear to me that the final conclusion is consistent with the Court’s earlier rejection of the IRS claim that Court does not have authority to order sampling when the IRS does not agree. Another way of reading the paragraph is that the Court will not order sampling based on the stage of pretrial development right now in Kapur.

This raises some issues for me, but let me start with my understanding of good sampling that permits reasonable inferences about the universe of data that is sampled. Those reasonable inferences can be stated in possibilities or margins of error for the inferences, which generally can be slimmed down by increasing the sample size.

Supreme Court Opinion on Presumptions and Burden of Proof (6/21/21)

Readers will recall that I have written on burden of proof, including its components, the burden of persuasion and the burden of production.  I have posted blogs, but my principal offering burden of proof was in Burden of Proof in Tax Cases: Valuation and Ranges—An Update, 73 Tax Lawyer 389 (2020), available on SSRN here.  Readers of this blog have surely been anxiously awaiting more on burden of proof.  The Supreme Court offered one today in Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. v. Arkansas Teacher Retirement System, ___ U.S. ___ (6/21/21), here.  Actually, I would not call it an update, but simply a rehashing of familiar burden of proof concepts in a specific setting in a class action securities fraud case.  The case is also perhaps notable because on the burden of proof issue, the majority opinion was written by Justice Barrett, and the dissent was written by Justice Gorsuch.

The case involved the burdens the parties bore in meeting the requirement that the class action plaintiffs show that the defendant’s false statements affected the market so that the plaintiffs’ reliance on the market price as a measure of value established damage.  The resolution turned on the plaintiffs’ invocation of a presumption in their favor and whether the presumption then shifted to the defendant a burden of production or a burden of persuasion.  The traditional role for a presumption, reflected in FRE 301, here, is to shift the burden of production—meaning a burden to produce some credible evidence without regard to whether that evidence persuades on the issue and without shifting the burden of persuasion.  In classic theory, the presumption does not shift the burden of persuasion, which, in Goldman, would have required that the plaintiffs bear the burden of persuasion on reliance.

The Court majority (Barrett, J.) held that, in this type of market reliance case, its precedents imposed the burden of persuasion on the defendant once the plaintiff met the requirements for creating the presumption.  In other words, the presumption in this case shifted the burden of persuasion, which is not the normal function of presumptions.

Once the majority found that its precedents imposed the burden of persuasion upon the presumption, the game was over.  Justice Gorsuch in dissent wanted to apply the general rule that the presumption only shifted the burden of production to Goldman and, once that limited production burden is met, the burden of persuasion remains with the plaintiffs.

That’s what the fight is all about.

Some interesting points from the opinions.

1. The shifting of the burden of persuasion (or, in a broader sense, the allocation of the burden of persuasion) only rarely would be outcome determinative.  (Majority Slip Op. 2 & 12-13).  This from pp. 12-13 is particularly good:

            Although the defendant bears the burden of persuasion, [*12] the allocation of the burden is unlikely to make much difference on the ground. In most securities-fraud class actions, as in this one, the plaintiffs and defendants submit competing expert evidence on price impact. The district court’s task is simply to assess all the evidence of price impact—direct and indirect—and determine whether it is more likely than not that the alleged misrepresentations had a price impact. The defendant’s burden of persuasion will have bite only when the court finds the evidence in equipoise—a situation that should rarely arise. Cf. Medina v. California, 505 U. S. 437, 449 (1992) (preponderance of the evidence burden matters “only in a narrow class of cases where the evidence is in equipoise”).

Publication in ABA Tax Lawyer Townsend Burden of Proof Article (6/8/20)

The ABA Tax Lawyer publication has published my article:  John A. Townsend, Burden of Proof in Tax Cases: Valuation and Ranges—An Update, 73 Tax Lawyer 389 (2020).  I have posted the article as published to SSRN where it can be reviewed or downloaded in pdf format.  The suggested citation on SSRN is:  Townsend, John A., Burden of Proof in Tax Cases: Valuation and Ranges — An Update (2020). 73 Tax Lawyer 389, 2020. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3599481

I had posted an earlier blog entry of the posting of an earlier draft to SSRN.  See Townsend Article on Burden of Proof and Valuation in Tax Cases (Federal Tax Procedure Blog 12/9/19), here.  The final as published has substantial changes, so I recommend that the final published article be used rather than the earlier draft.

The SSRN Abstract is.

Abstract

In this Article, the author discusses the difficulty in many valuation cases of determining a definite valuation point by the required degree of persuasion (more likely than not in most civil cases). This point was made cogently in Cede & Co. v. Technicolor, Inc., a frequently cited opinion by the Delaware Court of Chancery, a forum for significant litigation involving corporate valuations:

[I]t is one of the conceits of our law that we purport to declare something as elusive as the fair value of an entity on a given date. . . . [V]aluation decisions are impossible to make with anything approaching complete confidence. Valuing an entity is a difficult intellectual exercise, especially when business and financial experts are able to organize data in support of wildly divergent valuations for the same entity. For a judge who is not an expert in corporate finance, one can do little more than try to detect gross distortions in the experts’ opinions. This effort should, therefore, not be understood, as a matter of intellectual honesty, as resulting in the fair value of a corporation on a given date. The value of a corporation is not a point on a line, but a range of reasonable values, and the judge’s task is to assign one particular value within this range as the most reasonable value in light of all the relevant evidence and based on considerations of fairness.

Corporate valuations for estate tax are just one context of tax litigation, but there are many other contexts. A prominent example for some time now has been transfer pricing.

Presumption of Correctness and Burden of Proof (Persuasion) (1/21/20; 12/28/22)

As revised 12/28/22.

As revised on 12/28/22, the blog below is too long and has some diversions.  I try to be helpful to readers by the following very short summary.

Summary:

Too often courts refer to a "presumption of correctness" that applies to IRS determinations.  The presumption of correctness must be distinguished from a presumption of regularity often said to attach to Government action.  The presumption of regularity applies (if at all) to presume procedural regularity.  For example, if the IRS issues a notice of deficiency, it may be presumed that the IRS undertook the procedural steps required to issue the notice of deficiency.  As to the correctness of the deficiency determined in the notice, however, the presumption of regularity does not apply.  That is the context in which the presumption of correctness is often deployed. 

Often, the reference to presumption of correctness is in conjunction with a statement that the taxpayer bears the burden of proof (meaning burden of persuasion) to prove that the determination is incorrect. The presumption of correctness is meaningless gloss.  In classic procedure theory, a presumption merely shifts a burden of production from the party with the burden of persuasion onto the other party.  In tax cases, however, the taxpayer has the burden of persuasion and, for that reason, necessarily has the burden of production. All a presumption of correctness could do is to shift to the taxpayer a burden of production already imposed on the taxpayer by the burden of persuasion. Hence, the invocation of the presumption of correctness to shift the burden of production to the taxpayer is like (as one court said) covering with a handkerchief something already covered by a blanket.

That’s the proposition presented in the rest of the blog.  My recommendation is that courts (including the Tax Court), tax litigators, and scholars just quit talking about the presumption of correctness in tax context as if it means something. It does not mean anything and, for that reason, at least poses the possibility of being misleading. And, talking about the presumption of correctness shows that they really don’t understand what they are claiming.

END OF SUMMARY

This blog is a bit of a diversion, perhaps rant, about the loose use of the presumption of correctness much bandied about in tax judicial opinions.  What set me off this morning (the date of the original blog) was the Tax Court opinion in Onyeani v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2020-15, here.  In Onyeani, Onyeani petitioned for redetermination after a notice of deficiency was issued for 2015.  Nothing unusual there.  Procedurally, though it was not a typical case because it had been preceded by a termination assessment under § 6851(a).  Those termination assessments happen.  But what happens way more often is the nit I pick today relating to burden of proof (persuasion) and presumption of correctness.

In Onyeani, Judge Lauber says (p. 19):

The Commissioner’s determinations in a notice of deficiency are generally presumed correct. Rule 142(a)(1); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933). 

In the next sentence, Judge Lauber calls this the presumption of correctness, a common wording.

So what’s my beef?  At the very minimum, Rule 142, here, says nothing about presumptions--of correctness or otherwise.  The relevant part of Rule 142 is:

RULE 142. BURDEN OF PROOF
(a) General: (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, increases in deficiency, and affirmative defenses, pleaded in the answer, it shall be upon the respondent. As to affirmative defenses, see Rule 39. 

Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933), here does say something about presumptions of correctness (emphasis supplied):

“[The Commissioner’s] ruling [NOD] has the support of a presumption of correctness, and the petitioner has the burden of proving it to be wrong. “

Note that Supreme Court did not say in Welch that the IRS determination has the presumption of correctness because the taxpayer had the burden of persuasion or that the taxpayer had the burden of persuasion because the IRS determination was presumed correct.  Rather, the Supreme Court used the conjunctive that would not necessarily indicate that the two are the same; it did not say, for example, that the taxpayer bears the burden of proof (persuasion) because the IRS determination is presumed correct. Courts have read Welch as saying because, but those courts are wrong.  As I note below, the assignment of the burden of proof (persuasion) is free-standing for policy reasons as recognized in testimony to Congress before Welch and the assignment of the burden of persuasion carries with it the assignment of the burden of production which is the only function of a presumption.

To avoid further confusion, I need to distinguish between the burden of persuasion and the burden of production.  I do this in the context of a jury trial where the difference between the two are better developed (although they apply in bench trials such as in the Tax Court as well).  The burden of persuasion determines which party wins after all the evidence is in loses if the trier of fact (the jury) is in equipoise as to any crucial fact.  It comes into play at the end of the trial (although allocation of the burden of persuasion will influence how the parties present the evidence during trial.)  The burden of production is a concept to require, at any key point in trial (before the end of trial), which party loses by directed verdict from the judge without submission to the jury if that party does not introduce further evidence.  For further reading on these burdens, see John A. Townsend, Federal Tax Procedure (2022 Practitioner Ed.) pp. 596-597 (2019), which may be downloaded here.  I also refer readers to a parallel discussion in, John A. Townsend, Burden of Proof in Tax Cases: Valuation and Ranges—An Update, 73 Tax Lawyer 389, 405-406 (2020), SSRN here.

Townsend Article on Burden of Proof and Valuation in Tax Cases (12/9/19)

Caveat:  The ABA Tax Lawyer publication has published my article:  John A. Townsend, Burden of Proof in Tax Cases: Valuation and Ranges—An Update, 73 Tax Lawyer 389 (2020).  I have posted the article as published to SSRN where it can be reviewed or downloaded in pdf format.  The suggested citation on SSRN and the link for review or downloading is:  Townsend, John A., Burden of Proof in Tax Cases: Valuation and Ranges — An Update (2020). 73 Tax Lawyer 389, 2020. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3599481.  The final published article supersedes the draft and should be the one consulted going forward.

I have posted on SSRN a draft of an article, titled  Burden of Proof in Tax Cases: Valuation and Ranges - an Update, I have submitted to the ABA Tax Lawyer for publication.  The SSRN posting where the draft can be downloaded is here.

The SSRN Abstract is:

In this article, I update a previous article, John A. Townsend, Burden of Proof in Tax Cases: Valuations and Ranges, 2001 TNT 187-37 (2001). I discuss the difficulty in many valuation cases of determining a finite valuation point by the required degree of persuasion (more likely than not in most civil cases). This point was made cogently in a frequently cited opinion of by the Delaware Court of Chancery (which I quote in the next paragraph): 

It is one of the conceits of our law that we purport to declare something as elusive as the fair value of an entity on a given date. Valuation decisions are impossible to make with anything approaching complete confidence. Valuing an entity is a difficult intellectual exercise, especially when business and financial experts are able to organize data in support of wildly divergent valuations for the same entity. For a judge who is not an expert in corporate finance, one can do little more than try to detect gross distortions in the experts' opinions. This effort should, therefore, not be understood, as a matter of intellectual honesty, as resulting in the fair value of a corporation on a given date. The value of a corporation is not a point on a line, but a range of reasonable values, and the judge’s task is to assign one particular value within this range as the most reasonable value in light of all the relevant evidence and based on considerations of fairness.

Sometimes where ranges are identified, arbitrary conventions (such as the midpoint as in the case of publicly traded stock) can be used to determine the issue in litigation. But where there is no such convention that should be applied, the burden of persuasion can resolve the case by identifying the range. The party bearing the burden of persuasion (or risk of nonpersuasion) then has persuaded only as to the end of the range that does not favor that party and the value, based on persuasion, is determined accordingly. 

The party bearing the burden of persuasion in tax cases is usually the taxpayer. In the article, I discuss interesting features of the burden and how, at least in the Tax Court, the burden of persuasion might shift to the Commissioner under Helvering v. Taylor, 293 U.S. 507 (1935), which I think is often misunderstood. 

Another benefit of identifying the range is that, if it is determined on appeal that the trier of fact misapplied the burden of persuasion but did identify the range, the court of appeals can resolve the case by picking the other end of the range (unless a successful attack is made on the choice of the ends of the range).

The purpose of the advance publication on SSRN is to advised the community of the article and solicit comments for those wishing to make them.  I find that comments will help me make final revisions that make the final publication better.  Thanks in advance.

The SSRN listing for all of my articles is here.

Good Discussion of the Burden of Proof When the Trier of Fact Bases Decision on a Preponderance of the Evidence (12/17/15)

A case decided yesterday by the Fifth Circuit has a pretty good discussion on the effect of § 7491's shift of the burden of proof when the Tax Court may have improperly assigned the burden of proof under that section but had decided the case based on a preponderance of the evidence.  Brinkley v. Commissioner, ___ F.3d ___, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 21838 (5th Cir. 2015), here.

This is cumulative to what I state in the text book, but is probably a good reminder for students and new practitioners.  I incorporate the entire discussion on that subject:

A. The Allocation of the Burden of Proof 

"The allocation of the burden of proof [under I.R.C. § 7491] is a legal issue reviewed de novo." Whitehouse Hotel Ltd. P'ship v. Comm'r, 615 F.3d 321, 332 (5th Cir. 2010) (quoting Marathon Fin. Ins., Inc., RRG v. Ford Motor Co., 591 F.3d 458, 464 (5th Cir. 2009)). 

As a general rule, the Commissioner's determination of a tax deficiency is presumed correct, and the taxpayer has the burden of proving the determination to be erroneous. See Tax Ct. R. 142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933). However, I.R.C. §§ 6201(d) and 7491(a) set forth exceptions to this rule. Under § 6201(d), "if a taxpayer asserts a reasonable dispute with respect to any item of income . . . and the taxpayer has fully cooperated with the Secretary . . ., the Secretary shall have the burden of producing reasonable and probative information concerning such deficiency." Similarly, under § 7491(a), if "a taxpayer [(1)] introduces credible evidence with respect to any factual issue relevant to ascertaining the liability of the taxpayer for any tax," n7 (2) complies with certain substantiation requirements, (3) "maintain[s] all records required under this title," and (4) "cooperate[s] with reasonable requests by the Secretary for witnesses, information, documents, meetings, and interviews," then "the Secretary shall have the burden of proof with respect to such issue." Nevertheless, this Court has held that the operation of this burden-shifting scheme is irrelevant when both parties have met their burdens of production and the preponderance of the evidence supports one party. See Whitehouse Hotel, 615 F.3d at 332; Knudsen v. Comm'r, 131 T.C. 185, 189 (2008) ("[A]n allocation of the burden of proof is relevant only when there is equal evidence on both sides.").
   n7 Although this Court has yet to speak on what constitutes "credible evidence," the Eighth and Tenth Circuits have defined the term to mean "the quality of evidence, which after critical analysis, the court would find sufficient upon which to base a decision on the issue if no contrary evidence were submitted. . . ." Blodgett v. Comm'r, 394 F.3d 1030, 1035 (8th Cir. 2005) (quoting Griffin v. Comm'r, 315 F.3d 1017, 1021 (8th Cir. 2003)); accord Rendall v. Comm'r, 535 F.3d 1221, 1225 (10th Cir. 2008) (citing Blodgett, 394 F.3d at 1035). 

Here, the tax court initially found that Brinkley "did not introduce credible evidence regarding the tax character of the income in issue that merited a shifting of th[e] burden [of proof] to [the Commissioner]" under §§ 6201(d) and 7491(a). But the court ultimately declined to hold Brinkley to his burden, concluding instead that "[t]he preponderance of the evidence, without regard to burden of proof, is that [under letter agreement II] petitioner received the value of his stock and compensation for service previously rendered or to be rendered in the future." Accordingly, the resolution of this issue turns on the tax court's finding that the preponderance of the evidence supports the Commissioner's position that the $3.1 million payout in letter agreement II amounted to compensation for both his stock and his services to Zave and/or Google -- and therefore was properly characterized as ordinary income. 

We agree with the tax court's finding that the preponderance of the evidence favors the Commissioner's deficiency determination, so any error in the court's allocation of the burden of proof is harmless. See Whitehouse Hotel, 615 F.3d at 332; Blodgett v. Comm'r, 394 F.3d 1030, 1039 (8th Cir. 2005).

Addendum 12/18/15 9:00am:

Thoughts on Estate of Elkins and Valuations (10/21/14)

I write today on the Fifth Circuit's opinion in Estate of Elkins v. Commissioner, ___ F.3d ___, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 17882 (5th Cir. 2014), here.  In that case, the Fifth Circuit reversed the Tax Court in a valuation case involving discounts for fractional interests in valuable art.  The Fifth Circuit opens with a summary of its reasoning, such as it is (footnote omitted):

In the Tax Court, the Commissioner steadfastly maintained that absolutely no fractional-ownership discount was allowable. This presumably accounts for his failure to adduce any affirmative evidence—either factual or expert opinion—as to the quantum of such discounts in the event they were found applicable by the court.
The Tax Court rejected the Commissioner's zero-discount position, but also rejected the quantums of the various fractional-ownership discounts adduced by the Estate through the reports, exhibits, and testimony of its three expert witnesses—the only substantive evidence of discount quantum presented to the court.1 Instead, the Tax Court concluded that a "nominal" fractional-ownership discount of 10 percent should apply across the board to Decedent's ratable share of the stipulated FMV of each of the works of art; this despite the absence of any record evidence whatsoever on which to base the quantum of its self-labeled nominal discount.
We agree in large part with the Tax Court's underlying analysis and discrete factual determinations, including its rejection of the Commissioner's zero-discount position (which holding we affirm). We disagree, however, with the ultimate step in the court's analysis that led it not only to reject the quantums of the Estate's proffered fractional-ownership discounts but also to adopt and apply one of its own without any supporting evidence. We therefore affirm in part, reverse in part, and render judgment in favor of Petitioners, holding that the taxable values of Decedent's fractional interests in the works of art are the net amounts reflected for each on Exhibit B of the Tax Court's opinion. This, in turn, produces an aggregate refund owed to the Estate of $14,359,508.21, plus statutory interest.

Just a few paragraphs down, the Fifth Circuit continues:

This entire appeal thus begins and ends with the question of the taxable value of Decedent's fractional interests in those 64 items of non-business, tangible, personal property that were jointly owned in varying percentages by Decedent and his three adult children at the instant of his death. And, the answer to that one question begins and ends with the proper administration of the ubiquitous willing buyer/willing seller test for fair market value: "Fair market value is defined as 'the price at which the property would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or sell and both having reasonable knowledge of relevant facts.'"

The context for the Fifth Circuit’s opinion is the Tax Court’s opinion below.   In Estate of Elkins v. Commissioner, 140 T.C. No. 5, 2013 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 6 (T.C. 2013), here, the issue was the familiar one of the appropriate discounts for fractional interests.  The IRS generally disfavors fractional interests, due in no small part to taxpayers’ frequent – perhaps even common – use of aggressive discounts which will either prevail because they win the audit lottery or, if caught, will be recognized as improperly inflated and reduced accordingly.  (Most practitioners would say that it is entirely proper to assert aggressive discounts -- but not so aggressive that serious penalties would apply in the full expectation that, if contested, there will likely be some adjustment; that is the way the game is played.) Essentially, as I read the opinion, the Tax Court judge, Judge Halperin, found the estate's proffered too aggressive and found an alternative discount.  The estate, of course, had "experts" to testify as to the discounts.  The IRS essentially had no "experts" to testify that no discount or any discount less than testified by the estate's experts was appropriate.  So, on the record presented, Judge Halperin found that the proper discount was 10%, substantially below the discounts claimed by the estate.  He based that on the entire record before him.

Failure of Taxpayers' Proof of Value Loses Case (10/8/14)

In Cavallaro v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2014-189, here, the Tax Court held that the parents owning a company merged with a company owned by the children had not received enough value in the merged companies and thereby made a gift to the children.  The court also held that the parents had reasonable cause to rely upon their tax advisors and thus avoided penalties.

I focus here on the valuation issue of whether a gift was made.  The law is clear that a gift can be made under such circumstances if one party shifts value to other related parties.  The Court resolved the actual value issue on the basis of the burden of proof.  Most of the time, valuation issues are decided after each side has proffered expert testimony with the Court finding a value somewhere in between.  Even where the parties are reasonable in their valuations, they are usually reasonably aggressive positions and the value really is somewhere in between.  In Cavallaro, however, the Court found the value the Commissioner claimed because, it found, that taxpayers had failed to meet the burden of proof imposed upon them.  Basically, the potential for a shift in value from the parents to the children occurred only if the parents' company did not own certain valuable technology.  The parents' claim was that the children's company owned the valuable technology, hence the parents did not receive less than they contributed to the merger and did not make a gift to the children.  The parents' experts made their expert reports assuming the validity of the claim that the parents' company did not own the technology.  The Court found, however, that the parents' company did own the technology, thereby rendering the parent's expert witness reports irrelevant.  All the Court then had was the claim by the Commissioner (which had been reduced from the amount originally asserted in the notice of deficiency), supported, of course, by the Commissioner's expert report.  The Court thus had no basis for doing anything other than sustaining the Commissioner based on the taxpayers' failure to meet the burden of proof.

Key components of the holding are:

1.  The Court first held that the taxpayers had the burden of proof even though the IRS had substantially reduced its valuation from the amount originally asserted in the notice of deficiency.  The Court reasoned.

In general, the IRS's notice of deficiency is presumed correct, "and the petitioner has the burden of proving it to be wrong". Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115, 54 S. Ct. 8, 78 L. Ed. 212, 1933-2 C.B. 112 (1933); see also Rule 142(a). The Commissioner has conceded that the taxable gifts totaled not $46.1 million (as in the notices of deficiency) but instead $29.6 million (as yielded by Mr. Bello's analysis). Where the Commissioner has made a partial concession of the determination in the notice of deficiency, the petitioner has the burden to prove that remaining determination wrong. See Silverman v. Commissioner, 538 F.2d 927, 930 (2d Cir. 1976) [**52]   (holding that the burden of proof does not shift where the Commissioner's change of position operates in favor of the taxpayer), aff'g T.C. Memo. 1974-285; cf. Rule 142 (shifting the burden "in respect of * * * increases in deficiency").

2.  The Court then rejected the argument that the reduction shifted the burden under Tax Court Rule 142(a)(1) which imposes the burden of proof on the commissioner "in respect of a new matter."  For much the same reason as Silverman, the Court rejected the argument.  The Court did say that the IRS's assertion of the accuracy related penalty rather than the fraud penalty was a new matter (even though the taxpayer's claim of reasonable cause would have been a defense to the fraud penalty originally asserted); and in any event, the Court found the defense proved so neither penalty applied.

Tax Court Tanks Another Taxpayer's Bullshit Tax Shelter (8/6/13)

This is almost ho-hum now.  At some point, I will quit posting these items.  But, for now, I post it because the Tax Court elevated it to a full T.C. opinion and devoted 244 pages of words to pouring out the taxpayer.  In John Hancock Life Insurance Company (U.S.A.) v. Commissioner, 141 T. C. No. 1 (8/5/13), here, the taxpayer invested in two bullshit tax types of tax shelters -- LILOs and SILOs.  I recommend that readers interested in other failed attempts to snooker the courts in these types of transactions do a search on this blog on SILO and LILO.  John Hancock met the same fate.

As with most of the more sophisticated bullshit tax shelter, the facts are mind-numbingly complex to disguise the odor.  So, I won't get into the details.  Readers interested can read the case and the pundits who will claim that the world is coming to an end because taxpayers can't get their way.

I do address a burden of proof question that the Court address, but which ultimately was not outcome determinative.  For some reason, in the notice of deficiency and in the answer, the IRS did not raise the economic substance basis for disallowing the claims; instead the IRS raised it for the first time in a pretrial memorandum.  The Tax Court assigned the burden of proof to the IRS on that issue.  The IRS had timely asserted the related concept of substance over form, so the normal taxpayer burden of proof applied to that issue.

After exhaustive analysis of the proof, the court held that the IRS had not met its burden of proof with respect to lack of economic substance.  The Court seems to have been particularly piqued at the IRS' principal expert and his lack of a net present value calculation.  The Court formulated its bottom line conclusions on failure to meet burden of proof as follows:

Respondent has failed to demonstrate that John Hancock had no realistic expectation of profit when it entered into the test transactions. Though John Hancock's ABC reports lack a net present value analysis and are therefore inconclusive, respondent bore the burden of proof on this issue. Respondent has failed to meet his burden of proof, and we are therefore not persuaded that the test transactions fail the objective economic substance inquiry.

* * * * 

Respondent has failed to meet his burden of proving that the test transactions fail either the objective or subjective test under the economic substance doctrine. Therefore, we do not find that the test transactions lack economic substance.

Render Unto Caesar -- Another Intersection of Alleged Religion and Tax (10/9/12)

In Hovind v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2012-281, here, the Tax Court decided decided that the taxpayer had "had unreported Schedule C income and expenses (collectively, net profit) attributable to Creation Science Evangelism (CSE) and Dinosaur Adventure Land (DAL) for each of the years at issue; " (ii) that the taxpayer whether petitioner is liable for additions to tax under section 6651(a)(1) for failing to timely file her income tax return for each of the years at issue; and (3) and that the taxpayer is liable for the fraud penalty under section 6663(a) for each of the years at issue.

The following is from the opinion and gives a good introduction (footnotes omitted):\

Mr. Hovind established CSE in 1989. CSE purported to be a nondenominational religious organization that advocated the message of creation science and opposed the theory of evolution. CSE promoted its message through live lectures by Mr. Hovind and Eric Hovind. Mr. Hovind frequently traveled, domestically and internationally, for speaking engagements, and petitioner occasionally accompanied Mr. Hovind on these trips.

The Ministry then somehow developed, with various revenue generating projects.  The Court then continued (some footnotes omitted):

Civil Tax Fraud - IRS Burden of Proof and Negative Inference from Fifth Amendment Silence (8/2/12)

In the Tax Procedure class, we study fraud with respect to tax obligations.  Fraud has criminal and civil components.  Although we cover briefly the criminal components, I cover those in detail in a separate class, titled Tax Fraud and Money Laundering which will be taught next in the Spring of 2013 (see web page here).  In this Tax Procedure class we focus more on the civil components.

There are two key civil fraud penalties in the Code.  The one principally encountered in practice is Section 6663, here.  That section imposes a civil fraud penalty of 75% of the portion of an underpayment required to be shown on a return if "attributable to fraud."  The other key civil fraud penalty is Section 6651(f), here, which triples the failure to file penalty, to a maximum of 75%, if the failure to file is "fraudulent."  Each of these is viewed as a civil counterpart of the tax evasion crime under Section 7201 which can apply to a fraudulent return and a fraudulent failure to file.

Tax Procedure students might want to review an example of how the Government proves civil fraud that I discuss in a recent Federal Tax Crimes Blog entry, titled Tax Court Finds Fraud Based, in Part, On Negative Inference from Fifth Amendment Assertion (7/31/12), here.  The key points relevant to Tax Procedure that I discuss in that blog entry are:  (1) general rules of civil tax fraud cases, including certain "badges of fraud" permitting an inference of fraud for purposes of meeting the requirement that the IRS prove fraud by clear and convincing evidence and (2) the role of a negative inference when the taxpayer asserts the Fifth Amendment in a civil proceeding.