- 3 -
an income adjustment, resulted in a $3,365 income tax deficiency.
Petitioner admits that there was an error in his 1990 return
requiring the income adjustment. He has offered no evidence to
either substantiate the Schedule C expenses or to show that they
were ordinary and necessary.
OPINION
Petitioner does not seek to show that respondent’s
adjustments to income and deductions were in error; instead he
asks the Court to “waive” the 1990 deficiency and award $50,000
in damages from respondent. Petitioner contends that the above
relief is justified due to respondent’s alleged improper audit
procedures and actions. Petitioner contends that respondent’s
following actions were improper: (1) Violation of the Privacy
Act of 1974, Pub. L. 93-579, 88 Stat. 1896 (the Privacy Act),
when respondent’s agent informed petitioner that his was a
“routine” audit, (2) failure to meet the burden of production
allegedly imposed by section 6201, and (3) lack of substantial
justification to begin the audit that led to the deficiency
determination. Petitioner claims that he was injured by these
alleged improprieties and should be compensated by being relieved
from the 1990 deficiency. He also claims that he is entitled to
section 7435 civil damages because respondent’s counsel
“intentionally misstated facts” in his proposed stipulation of
facts included in his motion, under Rule 91(f), to show cause why
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011