-7-
in the asserted deficiencies and additions to tax made in the
amended answer. Ms. Ng bears the burden of proof with respect to
the deficiencies and additions to tax determined by respondent in
the notice of deficiency. Rule 142(a).
Ms. Ng claims that respondent's deficiency determination was
arbitrarily derived, and as a result, the presumption of
correctness generally attributed to the notice of deficiency should
disappear. In this regard, the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit (where an appeal in Ms. Ng's case would lie) has
held that in order for the presumption of correctness to attach to
the notice of deficiency in unreported income cases, the
Commissioner must come forward with substantive evidence
establishing "some evidentiary foundation" linking the taxpayer to
the income-producing activity, Weimerskrirch v. Commissioner, 596
F.2d 358, 361-362 (9th Cir. 1979), revg. 67 T.C. 672 (1977), or
"demonstrating that the taxpayer received unreported income."
Edwards v. Commissioner, 680 F.2d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1982), affg.
an Order of this Court; see also Rapp v. Commissioner, 774 F.2d
932, 935 (9th Cir. 1985), affg. an Order of this Court. We
therefore must examine the record to determine whether there is a
minimal evidentiary foundation supporting respondent's
determination of unreported income.
In the instant case, we find the record contains substantive
evidence to support respondent's determination of unreported
income. See Blohm v. Commissioner, 994 F.2d 1542, 1549 (11th Cir.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011