- 2 -
The issues for decision are whether petitioners, for their
1992 tax year, are entitled to a deduction for the cost of an
automobile used in the trade or business activity of Eli
Yecheskel (petitioner) and deductions for other expenses incurred
in that activity.2
Some of the facts were stipulated. Those facts, with the
exhibits annexed thereto, are so found and are incorporated
herein by reference. At the time the petition was filed,
petitioners were legal residents of Silver Spring, Maryland.
Petitioner was self-employed during 1992. He holds a doctor
of philosophy degree in management science. For a time prior to
the year in question, petitioner was a professor at Johns Hopkins
University. Petitioner left the academic field to pursue a self-
2
Two other adjustments in the notice of deficiency were
conceded by petitioner at trial: a disallowed casualty loss
deduction of $16,190 and disallowed legal expenses of $20,700.
The $16,190 casualty loss represented the amount of the loss
prior to the limitation provisions of sec. 165(h)(1) and (2).
After applying these limitations, the net casualty deduction
claimed was $10,000. In a memorandum of authorities and at
trial, petitioner argued that the Court should "deviate from the
general rule and look behind the notice of deficiency" to
establish that "the deficiency notice stems from incompetent
examination of Petitioners' 1992 Tax Return or alternatively that
the examination was not instituted or conducted in good faith or
for a legitimate purpose." The Court rejects that argument under
the well-recognized rule, which petitioner is familiar with, that
this Court generally will not look behind a notice of deficiency
to examine evidence used or the propriety of the Commissioner's
motives, administrative policies, or procedures involved in
making the determinations in the notice. Proesel v.
Commissioner, 73 T.C. 600 (1979); Greenberg's Express, Inc. v.
Commissioner, 62 T.C. 324, 327 (1974).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011