- 25 -
effect, the exception set forth in Scar v. Commissioner, 814 F.2d
1363 (9th Cir. 1987), revg. 81 T.C. 855 (1983), would no longer
be limited to cases where the notice of deficiency is invalid on
its face.
In the case at hand, petitioner has not offered any evidence
that could lead us to conclude, or made any assertions that could
even lead us to suspect, that the statutory notice was either
arbitrary or based upon constitutionally tainted evidence.
Moreover, the record contains a great deal of evidence showing
that petitioner in fact received almost all the income charged in
the statutory notice. As a result, petitioner is not being put
in the position of having to “prove a negative” (i.e., the non-
receipt of income), simply because respondent issued a notice
entitled to a presumption of correctness. Cf. Weimerskirch v.
Commissioner, 596 F.2d at 361.
For this and the other reasons described above, we hold that
the notice sent to petitioner is amply supported by the evidence
in the record; the unreported income exception to the presumption
of correctness does not apply to the case at hand. Petitioner’s
arguments to the contrary have no merit.
II. Petitioner’s Motion in Limine
The statutory notice stated that petitioner’s income
included unreported business gross receipts, but it did not give
any further explanation for this determination.
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011