- 10 -
notice of deficiency is void and without legal effect. In
support of that defense, petitioner avers that (1) respondent
failed to make a determination, as required by the Internal
Revenue Code, (2) the deficiency notice is arbitrary and
erroneous because it fails fully to state the foundational
evidence relied on by respondent, (3) respondent’s determination
does not enjoy a presumption of correctness since it is a naked
assessment, and (4) respondent has denied petitioner due process.
At trial and on brief, petitioner limited the issues before
the Court. On brief, petitioner states that there are three
issues before the Court: (1) A child support issue, involving
the number of dependents petitioner may claim and the character
(whether interest or not) of certain payments received by her
from her ex-husband, (2) the amount of income received and the
amount of expenses incurred in connection with her real estate
activities, and (3) whether the deficiency notice constituted a
“naked assessment”. We assume that petitioner has abandoned all
grounds raised in the petition but not addressed in her brief.
With respect to the additions to tax, petitioner relies on our
finding no deficiencies in tax.
At trial, respondent conceded certain increased deductions
with respect to petitioner’s rental income. After trial,
respondent conceded certain deductions with respect to personal
exemptions. We accept those concessions.
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