- 5 -
Express, Inc. v. Commissioner, supra at 328. However, one
recognized exception to this general rule occurs when there is
substantial evidence of unconstitutional conduct by respondent in
determining the deficiency. Church of Scientology v.
Commissioner, 83 T.C. 381, 447-48 (1984), affd. 823 F.2d 1310
(9th Cir. 1987); Riland v. Commissioner, 79 T.C. 185, 207 (1982);
Greenberg's Express, Inc. v. Commissioner, supra at 328.
Petitioner contends that respondent's decisions with respect to
him were racially motivated. While decisions by a government
official based on impermissible considerations such as race may
constitute a violation of equal protection, see, e.g., Oyler v.
Boles, 368 U.S. 448 (1962), petitioner has presented no evidence
to substantiate his claim, and our review of the entire record in
this case gives us no reason to suspect it may be true.
Essentially, respondent's decisions in this case were to audit
petitioner, to reject his claim of reasonable cause for failure
to file, and to oppose his claim that he was not liable for self-
employment tax.3 A decision to audit a nonfiler seems to us
unexceptional, and since we sustain the other positions taken by
respondent, we fail to discern bias in respondent's reaching
them. Thus, we decline to further examine respondent's actions
preceding the notice of deficiency on this basis.
3 It should be noted that respondent disputes whether
petitioner in fact contested his self-employment tax liability
prior to submitting his trial memorandum in this case.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011