- NEXTRECORD -
Normally, the Court does not look behind a notice of
deficiency to examine the evidence used by the Commissioner in
making the deficiency determinations. Greenberg's Express, Inc.
v. Commissioner, 62 T.C. 324, 327 (1974). However, whenever the
notice of deficiency is found to be arbitrary, excessive, or
without rational foundation, the burden of going forward with the
evidence is borne by the Commissioner. Helvering v. Taylor, 293
U.S. 507 (1935). This exception to the general rule has been
applied in cases involving unreported income from illegal
activities. E.g., Dellacroce v. Commissioner, 83 T.C. 269, 287
(1984).
Petitioners seek to invoke the foregoing exception to the
general rule by arguing that respondent's deficiency
determination for 1990 "is not supported by the proper foundation
of substantive evidence". Weimerskirch v. Commissioner, 596 F.2d
358, 362 (9th Cir. 1979). However, for the following reasons, we
do not think that such determination is "a 'naked' assessment
without any foundation." See United States v. Janis, 428 U.S.
433, 441 (1976).
First, 2 days after his criminal trial began, petitioner
pleaded guilty to the charge that from "in or about June 1990 to
in or about September 1990, within the Northern District of
Alabama, * * * [petitioner] did unlawfully, knowingly and
intentionally possess with the intent to distribute and
distributed marijuana, a Schedule I controlled substance, in
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