- 21 -
T.C. Memo. 1997-6; Senter v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-
311. On rare occasions, when such a minimal evidentiary
foundation for the deficiency determination is not present,
this and other courts have not given effect to the
presumption of correctness and have shifted the burden of
going forward with the evidence from the taxpayer to the
Commissioner on the ground that the notice of deficiency is
arbitrary, i.e., without rational foundation in fact, or
excessive. See Llorente v. Commissioner, 649 F.2d 152 (2d
Cir. 1981), affg. in part, revg. in part, and remanding 74
T.C. 260 (1980); Weimerskirch v. Commissioner, supra;
Dellacroce v. Commissioner, 83 T.C. 269 (1984); Jackson
v. Commissioner, 73 T.C. 394 (1979).
This is not such a case. In this case, there is ample
evidence linking petitioner to the funds which form the
basis of the deficiency. Petitioner controlled and signed
checks drawn on H&B's bank accounts at First Interstate and
Community Bank, and H&B's drivers gave petitioner the cash
and cashier's checks they received from Trans State. Thus,
we find no basis to conclude that the notice of deficiency
is arbitrary or without foundation. Accordingly,
petitioners bear the burden of proving that respondent's
determinations are erroneous. See Rule 142(a).
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011