Bruce K. Remy and Gail E. Remy - Page 15

                                       - 15 -                                         
             v. Commissioner, 1 B.T.A. 342 (1925), a case involving                   
             income and profits taxes for the years 1918 to 1920.                     
             In that case, the Board of Tax Appeals found that the                    
             Commissioner's revenue agent had not properly computed the               
             taxpayer's net income.  The Board noted that the revenue                 
             agent had arrived at the taxpayer's net income "by adding                
             certain alleged omissions of income to the net income                    
             returned by the taxpayer on his original return, without a               
             verification of the entire net income, either by an                      
             examination of all the income and expenses, or by a proof                
             of the opening and closing balance sheets."  Id. at 346.                 
             At the same time, the Board found that the taxpayer's                    
             proof, consisting principally of an "audit" of the                       
             taxpayer's books by an independent certified public                      
             accountant, could not prove the correctness of the                       
             taxpayer's net income.  Nevertheless, the Board found "from              
             the entire record that the proposed deficiency [was] not                 
             well founded" and  "disallowed" the deficiency.  Id.                     
                  Petitioners' argument focuses on alleged "gross                     
             errors of fact contained in the original revenue examiner's              
             report", and petitioners ask the Court "to disallow the                  
             Commissioner's contention that a deficiency existed in the               
             first place".  In particular, petitioners assert that "the               
             revenue examiner was unable to cite any statute which would              






Page:  Previous  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011