- 188 -
equal protection where the selection was not deliber-
ately based upon an unjustifiable standard such as
race, religion, or other arbitrary classification.
Oyler v. Boles, 368 U.S. 448 (1962). [Penn-Field
Indus., Inc. v. Commissioner, 74 T.C. at 722-723.]
Although petitioner alleges on brief that the examining
agent who proposed the deficiencies that form the bases for the
notices herein was "personally biased against 'rich people from
Hong Kong'" who he believed "all cheated", he does not argue that
that allegation (or any other alleged fact) establishes that he
was singled out based on a constitutionally impermissible ground.
Based on our review of the entire record before us, and
assuming arguendo that petitioner had shown that he was singled
out for audit and deficiency determination while others similarly
situated were not, we find that he has not established that
respondent's selection of him was based upon a constitutionally
impermissible ground.
* * *
On the record in the instant cases, we reject petitioner's
contention that respondent's determination of the deficiencies in
these cases relating to the Bank transactions constituted a
denial of his right to equal protection of the law under the
Fifth Amendment. See Nationalist Movement v. Commissioner, 102
T.C. 558, 595 (1994), affd. 37 F.3d 216 (5th Cir. 1994); Penn-
Field Indus., Inc. v. Commissioner, 74 T.C. at 723-724.
Page: Previous 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011