3
should be to shift the burden of proof to respondent for 1992.
Petitioner contends that we should strike respondent's answer.
The notice of deficiency did not contain the explanation for
respondent's position which respondent had previously stated in
the 30-day letter. Petitioner contends that respondent should
bear the burden of proof because the notice of deficiency did not
state the basis for the tax due as required by section 7522.
Respondent concedes that shifting the burden of proof is
appropriate if section 7522 is violated, but contends that it was
not violated here. The procedural issues for decision are:
1. Whether respondent should bear the burden of proof
because the notice of deficiency did not describe the basis for
the amounts of tax due as required by section 7522, or because of
respondent's agent's conduct in this case. We need not reach
this issue because respondent prevails regardless of which party
bears the burden of proof.
2. Whether striking respondent's answer is an appropriate
sanction for respondent's agent's conduct in this case. We hold
that, instead of striking respondent's answer, we will impose a
$5,000 penalty on respondent.
Section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in
effect for the years in issue. Unless otherwise indicated, Rule
references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
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