- 8 -
respondent in determining the deficiency and in unreported
illegal income cases where respondent introduced no evidence.
Berkery v. Commissioner, supra at 186-187.
Petitioner's frivolous contentions do not involve the
exceptions to the general rule summarized above nor do they
otherwise warrant our reviewing respondent's administrative
procedures. None of the notices fails to identify the subject
tax; each clearly describes the "Kind of Tax" involved as
"INDIVIDUAL INCOME". The alleged substitute returns are forms
that were included in the notices of deficiency and that detailed
the adjustments determined by respondent. The forms in question
merely facilitated the processing of the notices and did not
serve as substitute returns under section 6020. Nothing in the
Internal Revenue Code requires the Secretary to file a return
pursuant to section 6020 before assessing a deficiency. Schiff
v. United States, 919 F.2d 830 (2d Cir. 1990); Manka v. United
States, 71 AFTR 2d 93-1735, 93-2 USTC par. 50,371 (D. Colo.
1993). Petitioner's contention that respondent misclassified her
source of income is spurious.4 Each notice describes her
unreported income and lists the payor source or sources.
4 Petitioner submitted a copy of one of respondent's internal
files monitoring the status of her purported deficiencies. The
file references an "activity code" number that can be correlated
to the manufacture of pistols and revolvers. Petitioner gleans
from this that her source of income was misclassified. However,
none of the notices of deficiency attribute income to petitioner
from the manufacture of pistols and revolvers.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011