1976 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 125">*125
66 T.C. 101">*101 OPINION
This matter arises because the Commissioner has issued two notices of 1976 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 125">*126 deficiency with respect to the same transaction. In a notice of deficiency dated September 19, 1972 (the first notice), he determined a deficiency of $ 13,226.41 in the petitioners' income tax for 1969. Such deficiency was based upon a finding that they realized long-term capital gain in that year of $ 70,387.57 from the sale of stock in the Yellow Cab Co. of Raleigh, Inc., which could not be reported in accordance with
Subsequently, in a notice of deficiency dated July 10, 1975 (the second notice), the Commissioner determined a deficiency of $ 7,990.50 in the petitioners' income tax for 1972. In part, such deficiency was based on a finding that the petitioners, in 1972, realized long-term capital gain of $ 70,387.57 from the sale of stock in the Yellow Cab Co. of Raleigh, Inc. (the stock). 1976 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 125">*127 In docket No. 9074-75, the petitioners have timely petitioned this Court for a redetermination of the deficiencies set forth in the second notice. Both dockets have since been consolidated for purposes of trial, briefing, and opinion.
The petitioners filed a motion for summary judgment requesting we hold that, as a matter of law, the Commissioner abandoned the deficiency set forth in the first notice when he issued the second notice. A hearing was held on such motion, and the parties have submitted briefs in support of their positions. The Commissioner has clearly stated in his brief, and the petitioners in their reply brief clearly recognize, that the notices before us are intended to assert alternative deficiencies; that is, the Commissioner is seeking to tax the gain from the sale of the stock only once, not twice. In these notices, the Commissioner has determined that the gain was realized either in 1969 or 1972, but he has clearly stated that in the event one of his determinations is upheld, he concedes that the other determination is incorrect.
Moreover, if the Court finds that the gain on the sale of the stock is taxable in one of the years, it will not hold the same gain1976 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 125">*128 to be taxable in the other year. See
66 T.C. 101">*103 The Rules of this Court recognize that any party may present alternative statements of a claim or defense in his pleadings.
The facts of this case differ from those cases in only one material respect: here, the Commissioner used separate notices of deficiency to assert that the taxpayer realized the same income in different taxable years; whereas, in the other cases involving the same taxpayer, the alternative claims were contained in a single notice of deficiency. However, it is immaterial whether the alternative claims are presented in a single notice or in separate notices. In many cases, the Commissioner has asserted, in the alternative, that the same income was received by several taxpayers, and in those cases, the alternative claims were presented in separate notices; nonetheless, the courts have upheld the Commissioner's right to present such alternative claims.
Whenever it is practicable to do so, it is surely preferable to have the Commissioner present his alternative claims for a deficiency against the taxpayer in a single notice of deficiency, for in that manner, the taxpayer is made aware that the claims are presented in the alternative, and the alternative claims can be dealt with in a single petition to this Court. Furthermore, we urge the Commissioner, whenever he sets forth an alternative claim in a second notice, to indicate clearly to the taxpayer that the claim is being presented in1976 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 125">*132 the alternative and that there is no intention to tax the same income twice. However, whenever it appears, as here, that the Commissioner has issued a second notice of deficiency setting forth an alternative claim with respect to the same income, we will not hold that, as a matter of law, he has abandoned the first determination.
The petitioners' reliance on
Many of the petitioners' arguments deal with the question of whether, when the Commissioner subsequently adopts a different position, the burden of proof shifts to him with respect1976 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 125">*133 to such matter. However, the question as to who bears the burden of proof with respect to the alternative positions asserted by the Commissioner in this case was not raised by the petitioners in their motion, and we need not pass on such matter at this time. 1
66 T.C. 101">*105 In view of our conclusion that, as a matter of law, the Commissioner may present alternative positions for the consideration of the Court, the petitioners' motion for summary judgment will be denied.
1. In any event, the question as to who bears the burden of proof is not a proper subject of a motion for summary judgment.