- 29 -
disallowance at trial or in his numerous filings. We treat his
failure to address these issues as, in effect, a concession. See
Rules 34(b)(4), 151(e)(4) and (5); Sundstrand Corp. v.
Commissioner, 96 T.C. 226, 344 (1991); Money v. Commissioner, 89
T.C. 46, 48 (1987); Grossman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-
452, supplemented by T.C. Memo. 1997-451, affd. ___ F.3d ___(4th
Cir., June 28, 1999).
Even if petitioner had not conceded the net operating loss
issue, he nevertheless failed to present evidence that would
overcome respondent’s determination to disallow the net operating
loss carryovers. Under these circumstances, we sustain
respondent’s determination and hold that petitioner is not
entitled to deduct the net operating loss carryovers at issue.
See Head v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-270.
V. Procedural Issues
A. Validity of Deficiency Notice
Petitioner, relying upon Portillo v. Commissioner, 932 F.2d
1128 (5th Cir. 1991), affg. in part, revg. in part and remanding
T.C. Memo. 1990-68, contends that respondent’s notice of
deficiency was “arbitrary, frivolous, and capricious” and thus
that the determination that he received unreported income was
fatally flawed. We disagree. In Portillo, the Commissioner
issued a notice of deficiency in reliance upon a third party’s
Form 1099 filed with the Commissioner. The U.S. Court of Appeals
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011