- 10 -
$173,729, and it was therefore unreasonable for respondent to
determine that petitioner received distributions taxable as
dividends from Levitz in the amount of $308,545 that same tax
year. Petitioner contends that this shows that respondent failed
to make an adequate determination based on information respondent
possessed.
Respondent concluded that petitioner had received
$356,124.92 from Levitz and that only $47,579.12 of this amount
was a non-taxable return of capital. Respondent then examined
the RTVUE and established that petitioner had not reported
dividends on his 1994 return. Respondent requested information
concerning the withdrawals, information which petitioner failed
to provide. The possibility that the determination in the notice
of deficiency may ultimately be held to be erroneous does not
invalidate the notice of deficiency. See Stevens v.
Commissioner, 709 F.2d 12, 13 (5th Cir. 1983), affg. per curiam
T.C. Memo. 1982-352.
Petitioner was given the opportunity to provide respondent
with the necessary documentation concerning the proposed
adjustments but failed to do so. Petitioner also failed to meet
with an Appeals officer in an attempt to resolve the matter prior
to the issuance of the notice of deficiency.
Petitioner's chief contention is that respondent is required
to examine petitioner's actual income tax return, or a copy
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011