- 14 -
the notice of deficiency plainly shows grounds for application of
the 6-year period to assess tax.3
Petitioner contends that, because respondent relies on the
6-year period to assess tax, the notice of deficiency must, but
does not, include an indirect method of proof of unreported
income, such as a net worth, source and application, or bank
deposits analysis. Petitioner cites Sutherland v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1996-1, and Arendt v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-
443, to support petitioner's contention that if respondent relies
on the 6-year period to assess tax, the notice of deficiency must
apply such a method or other proof of receipt of unreported
income. We disagree that Sutherland or Arendt supports
petitioner's contention. In Sutherland, we rejected the
taxpayer's contention that the Commissioner mailed the notice of
deficiency too late. We concluded that the 6-year assessment
3 Secs. 6212 and 7522 do not specifically require the
Commissioner to state in the notice of deficiency whether the
Commissioner relies on sec. 6501(e)(1)(A). Petitioner recognizes
that the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense and
does not affect the jurisdiction of this Court. Rule 39;
Robinson v. Commissioner, 57 T.C. 735, 737 (1972); Badger
Materials, Inc. v. Commissioner, 40 T.C. 1061, 1063 (1963).
Thus, petitioner's reliance on Reis v. Commissioner, 1 T.C. 9
(1942), affd. 142 F.2d 900 (6th Cir. 1944), and Stoller v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1983-319, is misplaced because, in those
cases, we decided whether the time to assess tax had expired, not
whether we had jurisdiction.
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