Lance R. and Elaine C. LeFleur - Page 12

                                               - 12 -                                                 
            with sufficient specificity in the notice of deficiency, inasmuch                         
            as "only a general explanation" is offered.  Respondent, on the                           
            other hand, maintains that the notice of deficiency provides an                           
            adequate explanation of adjustments, and thus a shift of the                              
            burden of proof is not warranted.  We agree with respondent.                              
                  The general rule of law is clear that, upon the issuance of                         
            a timely notice of deficiency by respondent, the burden of                                
            proving the determinations in such notice to be erroneous is on                           
            the taxpayer.  Rule 142(a) states that the burden of proof shall                          
            be on the petitioner except as otherwise provided by statute or                           
            "determined by the Court".                                                                
                  As relevant here, section 7522(a) provides that any "notice                         
            * * * shall describe the basis for, and identify the amounts (if                          
            any) of, the tax due".  Section 7522(b) specifies that these                              
            provisions shall apply to, among others, any notice "described in                         
            section * * * 6212".  See Ludwig v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.                              
            1994-518.  Section 6212 pertains to notices of deficiency, as                             
            here.  Upon examination, the notice of deficiency issued to                               
            petitioners specifically provides the primary position determined                         
            by respondent, details an alternative position, and calculates a                          
            deficiency of $283,078 for petitioners based upon the primary                             
                  Based on the foregoing discussion, we hold that respondent                          
            has met the requirements of section 7522.  We therefore decline                           

Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011