- 5 -
theory of a third party’s malicious information instigating the
audit. As a general rule, we do not look behind the deficiency
notice. See Greenberg’s Express, Inc. v. Commissioner, 62 T.C.
324, 330 (1974). The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has
recognized an exception to this rule and has looked behind the
notice of deficiency in cases involving unreported income where
the Commissioner introduced no substantive evidence but rested on
the presumption of correctness and the taxpayer challenged the
notice of deficiency on the grounds that it was arbitrary. See
Weimerskirch v. Commissioner, 596 F.2d 358 (9th Cir. 1979), revg.
67 T.C. 672 (1977). This exception to the rule is not applicable
to the instant case; therefore, we shall not look behind the
deficiency notice to evaluate the audit procedure. There is no
inherent evil residing in the fact that the Commissioner may
institute an audit based on information received from a third
party. We find petitioner’s claims of injury and request for
damages to be either without merit or without our jurisdiction.
The remaining matter in this case is whether petitioner is
entitled to the Schedule C car and truck expense deductions he
claimed. Initially, we observe that petitioner bears the burden
of proving by a preponderance of evidence that the Commissioner’s
disallowance was in error. See Olton Feed Yard, Inc. v. United
States, 592 F.2d 272, 275 (5th Cir. 1979) (citing Helvering v.
Taylor, 293 U.S. 507, 515 (1935)). Petitioner has presented no
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011