- 18 -
stipulated that $103,420 of that $104,786 was paid for personal
services petitioner performed. Moreover, the record reveals that
petitioner was a signatory on the Universal account, that he was
one of the original “capital unit” holders in Universal, and that
as a unit holder he was entitled to receive distributions of
income and of corpus from Universal. Therefore, a comparison of
the facts in the record with the notice sent to petitioner
confirms that respondent actually determined a deficiency in
petitioner’s tax. Moreover, as we conclude in our discussion of
the substantive issues below, the record also proves the accuracy
of the determination made.
Equally importantly, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit has limited the application of Scar to the narrow
circumstances where the notice of deficiency reveals on its face
that no determination was made. See Kantor v. Commissioner, 998
F.2d 1514, 1521-1522 (9th Cir. 1993); Clapp v. Commissioner, 875
F.2d 1396, 1402 (9th Cir. 1989); Campbell v. Commissioner, 90
T.C. 110 (1988).
Petitioner argues that respondent’s three statutory notices
to petitioner, Ms. Ghavami, and Universal, which attributed the
same amount of income to each of them, show that respondent
failed to determine a deficiency in petitioner’s tax and that
petitioner’s notice was invalid on its face. We disagree.
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011