- 16 -
if “it either alters the original deficiency or requires the
presentation of different evidence.” Wayne Bolt & Nut Co. v.
Commissioner, 93 T.C. 500, 507 (1989).
The estate argues on brief that the burden should shift to
respondent because the notice of deficiency was not sufficient to
put the estate on notice of the factual basis of respondent’s
determination. The estate argues:
Certainly a code section reference may have legal meaning to
a tax professional or other students of the tax code but, a
reference [in the notice] in this case to Section 2036 is of
no descriptive assistance to a taxpayer.
* * * * * * *
The statements contained in the Notice indicate that the
transfers were made for less than full and adequate
consideration in money and monies worth but fails to
describe why the consideration was inadequate and further
fails to state the amount of consideration the Respondent
would consider adequate.
In Shea v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 183, 197 (1999), this
Court held:
where a notice of deficiency fails to describe the
basis on which the Commissioner relies to support a
deficiency determination and that basis requires the
presentation of evidence that is different than that
which would be necessary to resolve the determinations
that were described in the notice of deficiency, the
Commissioner will bear the burden of proof regarding
the new basis. * * *
In that case, since the notice did not describe section 66(b) as
respondent’s basis for disallowing the benefits of community
property law to the taxpayer, we treated the section 66(b) issue
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011