- 6 -
$49,836.2 Respondent’s agent’s initial computation and the
amounts set forth in the notice of deficiency were computed on a
fiscal year basis. A second computation by respondent, submitted
for trial purposes, was based on imputed interest for the 1994
and 1995 calendar years in the aggregate amounts (including
direct and indirect loans) of $19,476 and $59,832, respectively.
Discussion
I. Procedural/Evidentiary Matter
This case was submitted fully stipulated by the parties
under Rule 122. Respondent, however, reserved an objection to
the admissibility (relevance) of Exhibit 17-P, which is
respondent’s revenue agent’s report that was prepared and given
to petitioner before issuance of the notice of deficiency.
Respondent contends that the revenue agent’s report is not
admissible (relevant) in this instance. In support of his
position, respondent points out that the Court considers the
parties’ positions de novo and the pre-deficiency-notice
administrative record is therefore irrelevant. See Greenberg’s
Express, Inc. v. Commissioner, 62 T.C. 324 (1974). Respondent
acknowledges, however, that in certain limited circumstances, the
Court will “look behind the deficiency notice”. Such instances
2 In the notice of deficiency, respondent determined $49,836
of 1995 interest. The correct amount, however, should have been
$49,863. The transposition of the numbers 3 and 6 caused a $27
difference.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011