- 9 -
trying to circumvent the statute of limitations. We disagree for
reasons stated next.
A. Whether Respondent's Notice of Deficiency Is Valid
Petitioner contends that we lack jurisdiction because
respondent's notice of deficiency is invalid.
1. Effect of Petitioner's Denial That He Received Any
Economic Benefit From the �570,000 Settlement
Petitioner received a �570,000 bank draft payable to Swiss
Bank Corp. from Kenning on or about May 7, 1987. Petitioner
contends that respondent knew that the payment from Kenning was
made in settlement of A.T.O.'s lawsuit with Kenning, and that
petitioner was a director of A.T.O. Before respondent issued the
proposed adjustment letter on May 3, 1995, petitioner gave
respondent a written statement (not under oath) in which
petitioner denied receiving any personal benefit from the
�570,000. Petitioner contends that respondent had no basis for
determining that petitioner benefited personally from the
settlement funds. Petitioner points out that respondent did no
net worth analysis. Petitioner contends that respondent based
the notice of deficiency on mere suspicion and that the notice of
deficiency is invalid.
We disagree. To be valid, a notice of deficiency must
fairly advise the taxpayer that the Commissioner has actually
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011