- 16 -
petitioner and the funds paid to Universal, which respondent
claims are petitioner’s income. Petitioner asserts that as a
result, the statutory notice was an invalid “naked assessment”,
and we must dismiss the case at hand for lack of jurisdiction.
In the alternative, petitioner claims respondent’s failure to
supply the necessary “predicate evidence” deprives the notice of
its usual presumption of correctness, and respondent must bear
the burden of proof on all issues.
A. Validity of Notice
Petitioner’s claim that the notice was invalid effectively
asks us to “look behind” the notice. See Shriver v.
Commissioner, 85 T.C. 1, 3 (1985). As a general rule, we do not
look behind a deficiency notice to examine the evidence used, the
propriety of respondent’s motives, or the administrative policy
or procedure that informs respondent’s determinations. This is
because a trial before the Tax Court is a proceeding de novo; our
determination of a taxpayer’s tax liability must be based on the
merits of the case and not on any previous record developed at
the administrative level. See Greenberg’s Express, Inc. v.
Commissioner, 62 T.C. 324, 327-328 (1974). Moreover, even where
a taxpayer has made a showing casting doubt on the validity of
respondent’s determination, the notice is generally not rendered
void, and it remains sufficient to vest this Court with
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011