- 18 -
sent to both individual taxpayers and to related trusts, with
many of the same items of income being attributed to both the
individuals and the trusts. Prior to executing settlement
agreements on the basis of which decisions were entered by this
Court, the individual taxpayers filed a motion to dismiss,
arguing that the notices mailed to them were invalid because the
Commissioner had failed to consider information necessary to
determine the amounts of the deficiencies. Id. at 1398. We
denied the taxpayers' motion on the ground that the Commissioner
made specific determinations with respect to items reported on
the taxpayers' returns.
In rejecting the taxpayers' argument on appeal, the Court of
Appeals concluded:
Unlike Scar, the notices of deficiency make clear
that the Commissioner did examine each return, did
consider the deductions, and did attribute trust income
to the taxpayers from sham trusts related to the
particular taxpayer, not from unrelated entities. Also
unlike Scar, the notices did not state that the
deficiency was calculated upon the arbitrary selection
of the maximum tax rate. The notices of deficiency are
valid under Scar.
Furthermore, as the Tax Court has since pointed
out, Scar did not even require any affirmative showing
by the Commissioner that a determination set forth in
an alleged notice of deficiency was made on the basis
of the taxpayers' return. Only where the notice of
deficiency reveals on its face that the Commissioner
failed to make a determination is the Commissioner
required to prove that he did in fact make a
determination. Campbell v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 110
(1988). Here, nothing on the face of the notice
reveals that the Commissioner failed to make a
determination. [Id. at 1402; emphasis added.]
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011