§749

Accordingly, we conclude that section 7491(a) does not apply and the burden of proof on the charitable contribution deductions issue has not been shifted to respondent.

Accordingly, we conclude that section 7491(a) does not apply and the burden of proof on the charitable contribution deductions issue has not been shifted to respondent.

Because we decide this case on the basis of the preponderance of the evidence, we need not decide upon which party the burden rests .

The estate contends that the burden of proof has shifted to respondent pursuant to section 7491(a).

Consequently, we hold that petitioner has the burden of proof as to any disputed.

By their terms, neither section 7491(a) nor section 7491(c) is applicable here . As to the former, under which the burden of proof may be placed upon the Commissioner as to factual issues relevant to a taxpayer's liability for income, estate, or gift tax, petitioner has not introduced any "credible evidence with respect to any factual issue" concerning the deficiencies determined by respondent . Nor may petitioner do so for purposes of this motion given that it lacks the power to prosecute or de

Petitioner does not contend and the record does not establish that he has met the requirements ofsection 749)1(a) to shift the burden ofproofto respondent as to any relevant factual issue.

r has"the burden of prövincj that those determinations are erroneous . See Rule a 142 (a) ; "Welch -v Helvering, 290 U.:S. 111, 115 (1933) In some cases the burden of proof with respect to relevant'factual issues maÿ shift to the Commissioner under section 749I(à). Petitioners did -not 'argue ór present evidence that they sati'sfied the; requirements of'section 7491(a). Therefore, the-burden of proof does not' shift toerespondent . Other Inconie Section 6001 requirés a taxpayer to maintain suffi

ring, 290 U .S . 111, 115 (1933) . In some cases the burden of proof wit} h respect to. relevant factual issues may shift to the` Commissioner under section 7491(a) . Petitioner did not argue or present evidence that he satisfied'the requirements of section 749L(a) . Therefore, the burden of proof does not shift .to respondent. - 4 i Petitioner and respondent agree that petitioner did not report all of his gross receipts for 2005 . Petitioner argues that the disputed deposits are loan proceeds f

any event, petitioner has failed to establish that he has satisfied the requirements of section 749.1(a)(1) and (2) .

In support of their argument that the burden of proof shifts to respondent under section 749.1(a) with respect to the determi- nations in the notices to disallow their claimed Schedule C deductions, petitioners assert : The extensive testimony of Mr .