- 78 -
differing methodology, the Commissioner’s proposed reallocations,
for purposes of trial, were substantially lower than the notice
determination amounts. Finally, at the trial in that case, the
Commissioner did not support the notice determination and,
instead, relied on the trial expert’s analysis of the case.
In these cases, respondent’s failure to prepare or provide
pre-notice reports is not a violation of petitioners’ rights.
See Luhring v. Glotzbach, 304 F.2d 560 (4th Cir. 1962); Vallone
v. Commissioner, 88 T.C. 794, 806-807 (1987); Estate of Barrett
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-535, affd. 87 F.3d 1318 (9th
Cir. 1996). Nor is respondent’s failure to provide pre-notice
reports a procedural flaw that, per se, renders respondent’s
notice determinations arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.
That is especially true here where petitioners’ resistance and
dilatory approach was, to some extent, the cause of respondent’s
agents’ inability to provide pre-notice reports to petitioners.
For the most part, petitioners complain of the excessive
nature of respondent’s notice determinations or that respondent’s
trial experts’ reports and testimony would support substantially
smaller income tax deficiencies. That, in itself, does not make
respondent’s determinations arbitrary. Those matters are the
essence of the controversy here. Respondent’s trial and briefing
positions do not result in an increased adjustment from those in
the notices of deficiency. Nor has respondent advanced a new
legal theory or issue for which respondent would bear the burden
Page: Previous 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011