- 16 -
the amount received from BMAP for each such part are the
same.
Third, petitioners assert that respondent failed to
offer a “rational basis for the deficiency” and that the
notices of deficiency are therefore “arbitrary and
unreasonable” and, thus, lack a presumption of correctness.
As authority for this assertion, petitioners cite Portillo
v. Commissioner, 932 F.2d 1128 (5th Cir. 1991), and Jackson
v. Commissioner, 73 T.C. 394 (1979).
Addressing the last point first, we reject
petitioners’ assertion that the subject notices of
deficiency are “arbitrary and unreasonable” and lack a
presumption of correctness because respondent failed “to
offer a rational basis for the deficiency”. Generally,
a taxpayer bears the burden of proving that the
Commissioner’s determination of a deficiency is erroneous.
See Rule 142(a). All Rule references are to the Tax Court
Rules of Practice and Procedure.
The cases cited by petitioners involve notices of
deficiency in which the Commissioner had determined that
the taxpayers had realized unreported income. See Portillo
v. Commissioner, supra at 1131; Jackson v. Commissioner,
supra at 397. In the first case, the court found the
notice arbitrary and excessive because the Commissioner had
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