- 5 -
At trial, Mr. Murray eventually resorted to quoting the
Fourth Amendment and demanding that the Court force respondent to
“reveal his sources” and admit the IRS “is shielding and
protecting and encouraging people to be blackmailers”.
Petitioners went as far as to allege that “the IRS is probably
paying off the blackmailer * * * the IRS is guilty of obstruction
of justice because they’re harboring a blackmailer”.
The Court declines to attach any validity to petitioners’
allegations insofar as this case is concerned. Petitioners
conceded most of respondent’s disallowances and agreed to
adjustments on the remaining items. That fact indicates that
respondent had an appropriate reason to make the determination
reflected in the notice of deficiency. Whether the IRS received
a “tip” about Mr. Chavez’s fraudulent practice is immaterial in
this proceeding. Adjustments were made to petitioners’ return,
and the fact that petitioners conceded these adjustments gives
credence to the audit.
Inasmuch as petitioners have not shown that respondent’s
deficiency determination was arbitrary or erroneous, or that the
determination was not supported by the proper foundation, it is
inappropriate for this Court to look behind the deficiency notice
to examine the basis for, or reasons behind, respondent’s
determination. Weimerskirch v. Commissioner, 596 F.2d 358, 362
(9th Cir. 1979), revg. 67 T.C. 672 (1977); DeBoer v.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011