Higbee v. Commissioner

116 T.C. 438 (2001)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Higbee v. Commissioner

United States Tax Court
116 T.C. 438 (2001)

Facts

Earl and Lesley Higbee (plaintiffs) filed a petition against the commissioner (defendant) of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) with the United States Tax Court. The Higbees contended that they were entitled to deductions for casualty losses and charitable contributions and disputed their liability for additions to tax (i.e., penalties) under Internal Revenue Code (code) § 6651(a)(1) for failing to timely file their 1996 tax return and under code § 6662(a) for substantially understating their 1997 taxes. At trial, the Higbees supported their casualty-loss deduction with a small-claims-court form that bore no official notation or certification, did not indicate when the suit was commenced or completed, and did not appraise property or reliably estimate repair costs. The Higbees supported their contributions deductions with (1) their testimony, (2) documents that appeared to have been created by the Higbees rather than by charities, (3) preprinted forms that the Higbees filled out, and (4) purchase receipts. Per the Higbees, their deduction submissions constituted credible evidence for their positions, which, pursuant to code § 7491(a), shifted the burden of proof to the commissioner. The Higbees further contended that, under code § 7491(c), the commissioner bore the burden of production regarding the Higbees’ penalty liability. The commissioner responded that the Higbees retained the burden of proof regarding deductions because the Higbees did not submit credible supporting evidence and that the commissioner met the burden of production regarding penalties because the commissioner showed that the Higbees filed their 1996 return late and that their 1997 return substantially understated their taxes due to negligence or a disregard for the IRS’s rules or regulations.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Vasquez, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership