- 11 -
We shall first address petitioner’s “naked assessment”
argument and shall then address the remaining issues.
II. “Naked Assessment”
A. Introduction
Petitioner has devoted 10 pages of her 23 page brief to
arguing that respondent has made a naked assessment. We distill
petitioner’s arguments to claims that the statutory notice is
arbitrary and respondent has failed to come forward with evidence
of any unreported income so that respondent bears the burden of
proof.
B. Arbitrariness
Petitioner argues that the statutory notice is without
foundation and is inherently arbitrary. Accordingly, petitioner
argues that the notice of deficiency constitutes a “naked
assessment”, which is “invalid” within the rule of Helvering v.
Taylor, 293 U.S. 507 (1935).2 See United States v. Janis, 428
U.S. 433, 441 (1976). The rule of Helvering v. Taylor, supra,
2 To hold that a deficiency notice is invalid within the rule
of Helvering v. Taylor, 293 U.S. 507 (1935), because it
constitutes a “naked assessment” is not to hold that it is
invalid in the usual sense or that this Court lacks jurisdiction
over such notice. "Helvering v. Taylor, 293 U.S. 507 (1935),
teaches that when a petitioner makes a showing casting doubt on
the validity of a deficiency determination, the statutory notice
itself is not rendered void; the result of such showing is that
the respondent must then come forward with evidence to establish
the existence and amount of any deficiency." Suarez v.
Commissioner, 58 T.C. 792, 814 (1972), overruled as to another
issue Guzzetta v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. 173 (1982). To avoid
confusion, we shall refer to a notice of deficiency held to
constitute a naked assessment as being “arbitrary”.
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