- 4 -
primarily during the administrative stage of this case but also
to some extent after the filing of the petition. Specifically,
petitioner faults respondent's failure at any time to explain to
petitioner's satisfaction the grounds for the denial of
petitioner's claims of reasonable cause for his failure to file
in 1987 and 1989; he further cites errors and delays in
respondent's handling of his case from the time he contacted
respondent in 1991 to ascertain what he owed until the issuance
of a notice of deficiency in 1995; he contends that respondent
withheld evidence; and finally petitioner alleges that
respondent's "decision-making process" with respect to him "was
(racially) biased and arbitrary".
As to respondent's actions prior to the issuance of the
notice of deficiency, it is well settled that this Court
generally will not look behind the notice of deficiency to
examine the evidence or the propriety of the motives,
administrative policies, or procedures utilized by respondent in
making a determination. Proesel v. Commissioner, 73 T.C. 600,
605 (1979); Greenberg's Express, Inc. v. Commissioner, 62 T.C.
324, 327 (1974); Human Engg. Inst. v. Commissioner, 61 T.C. 61,
66 (1973). The rationale for this stance is that a trial before
this Court is a proceeding de novo, and our determination must be
based upon the merits of the case as presented here and not upon
a record developed at the administrative level. Greenberg's
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011