- 23 -
In sum, in Richards I we held that the notice of deficiency
issued to petitioners is facially valid. Petitioners have
offered no evidence to the contrary.
Although petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration does not
clearly state the proposition, we assume that petitioners seek
discovery and an evidentiary hearing in part to attempt to
develop evidence that the notice of deficiency is invalid.
However, to permit the use of such procedures under the
circumstances presented would run counter to the well-settled
principle that we generally will not look behind a notice of
deficiency to examine the evidence used by the Commissioner in
the determination of a deficiency. Scar v. Commissioner, 814
F.2d at 1368; Greenberg's Express v. Commissioner, 62 T.C. 324,
327-328 (1974), and cases cited therein. Considering that the
disputed notice of deficiency is facially valid, and in light of
petitioners' failure (as discussed above) to allege any facts
that would support a finding that respondent's agents engaged in
unconstitutional conduct, we will not look behind the notice of
deficiency in this case.
Because we reject petitioners' argument that the notice of
deficiency lacks a rational basis, it follows that petitioners'
contention that the notice of deficiency served as the means for
respondent to fraudulently toll the period of limitations
likewise fails.
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011