Harm De Boer - Page 31

                                       - 31 -                                         

          and 9 explain why adjustments were made with respect to                     
          petitioner's tax liability for 1991, and how respondent                     
          calculated the deficiency at issue.                                         
               We agree with respondent.  A trial before the Tax Court is a           
          proceeding de novo.  Greenberg's Express, Inc. v. Commissioner,             
          supra at 328.  Our decision in this case must be based on the               
          record of the case, not the record developed at the                         
          administrative level.  See O'Dwyer v. Commissioner, 28 T.C. 698,            
          702-704 (1957), affd. 266 F.2d 575, 581 (4th Cir. 1959).                    
          Inasmuch as petitioner has not shown that respondent's deficiency           
          determination was arbitrary and erroneous, or that the                      
          determination was not supported by the proper foundation                    
          evidence, see Weimerskirch v. Commissioner, 596 F.2d 358, 362               
          (9th Cir. 1979) revg. 67 T.C. 672 (1977), it is inappropriate for           
          us to look behind the deficiency notice to examine the basis for            
          respondent's determination.                                                 
          Issue (c).  Exhibit 10, IRS Settlement Proposal                             
               Respondent objects to the admission of an offer in                     
          settlement sent by an IRS Appeals officer to petitioner.  Rule              
          408 of the Federal Rules of Evidence renders inadmissible any               
          evidence of conduct or statements made in negotiations to                   
          compromise a claim.  Petitioner relies on the third sentence of             
          Rule 408, which provides that the rule does not require "the                
          exclusion of any evidence otherwise discoverable merely because             
          it is presented in the course of compromise negotiations."  There           



Page:  Previous  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011