- 12 -
Thus, notwithstanding the purported unavailability of
petitioner's original canceled checks and other documents,
petitioner provided ample, detailed records of his claimed
business expenses prior to the issuance of the deficiency notice
on January 13, 1994. Petitioner testified at trial that he made
these records very detailed so that he "gave a complete audit
trail". Consequently, we think petitioner cannot now complain
that respondent lacked his business records and thus arbitrarily
determined the deficiency.
Third, petitioner contends that the deficiency notice did
not state that the adjustments were made because he claimed
certain business expenses twice; i.e., duplicated deductions.
Instead, the notice of deficiency states that "it has not been
established that any amount in excess of the corrected amount was
for an ordinary and necessary business expense or was expended
for the purpose designated". A list of adjustments by category
and dollar amount followed.
Although petitioner correctly notes that the deficiency
notice does not use the word "duplication", the lack of
specificity preferred by petitioner does not prove that the
notice is arbitrary. A notice of deficiency must describe the
basis for and identify the amounts of tax due, any additional
amounts, additions to tax, and assessable penalties. Sec.
7522(a) and (b). An inadequate description does not invalidate
the notice. Id. The notice must fairly advise the taxpayer that
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011