- 65 -
Trading than gross receipts reported in its 1993 Form 1065, it
was possible that some of MZ Trading’s gross receipts for 1993
were deposited into bank accounts other than MZ Trading’s bank
account(s) or that MZ Trading did not deposit some of those gross
receipts. The statements of Mr. Oliveras in Mr. Oliveras’
summary on which petitioner relies do not establish that any of
MZ Trading’s gross receipts for 1993 were shifted or deposited
into any of petitioner’s accounts during that year.
Issues Relating to the Burden of Proof
It is petitioner’s position that respondent has the burden
of proving that for each of the years 1991, 1992, and 1993 each
of the deposits into petitioner’s accounts that remains at issue
is taxable. In support of that position, petitioner asserts:
Section 7522 requires the notice of deficiency to
contain a description of the basis for the commis-
sioner’s tax determinations. Respondent’s notices of
deficiency are based on the bank deposits analysis, and
do not contain a detailed description of the deposits.
Specific items of deposit must be relied on to prove
whether the deposits are nontaxable, which requires the
presentation of different evidence to prove specific
items not in the notices of deficiency. At the same
time, respondent is the party objecting to the presen-
tation of the documents that it prepared detailing the
specific deposits. Therefore, it is respondent who
should have the burden of proof on these specific
deposit issues, as they are “new matters” within Rule
142(a), United States Tax Court Rules of Practice and
Procedure, and pursuant to the holding of Shea v.
Commissioner, 112 T.C. 14 (1999).
Section 7522(a) requires that a notice of deficiency “de-
scribe the basis” for the tax deficiency. A new matter is raised
when the basis or the theory on which the Commissioner of Inter-
nal Revenue (Commissioner) relies was not stated or described in
Page: Previous 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011