- 16 -
serve to prohibit or disallow the petitioner's claimed
deduction for goodwill advertising".
They also assert that the agent’s report relies on a
case, Van Iderstine Co. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1957-
177, revd. 261 F.2d 211 (2d Cir. 1958), which does not
apply here and was not relied on by respondent at trial.
Finally, they assert that the revenue agent’s report
"incorrectly stated that 'no income has ever been reported
for the claimed deduction' when, in fact, the majority of
the petitioner's income was in the form of professional
fees received within the same business context as the
advertising expenditures claimed by the petitioner."
We reject petitioners' argument on the basis of the
well-established rule that the Court will not look behind
a notice of deficiency to review the Commissioner's
administrative consideration of a case. E.g., Greenberg's
Express, Inc. v. Commissioner, 62 T.C. 324, 327 (1974).
The rationale for this rule is that a trial before this
Court is a proceeding de novo, and our determination of a
taxpayer's tax liability must be based on the merits of the
case and not on any previous record developed at the
administrative level. Id. at 328.
Furthermore, we disagree with petitioners that the
three particulars enumerated in their post-trial brief
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011