- 66 -
the notice of deficiency and the new basis or the new theory
requires the presentation of different evidence. Shea v. Commis-
sioner, 112 T.C. 183, 197 (1999); Wayne Bolt & Nut Co. v. Commis-
sioner, 93 T.C. 500, 507 (1989). The rule for determining
whether the Commissioner has raised a new matter
is consistent with, and supported by, the statutory
requirement [in section 7522(a)] that the notice of
deficiency “describe the basis” for the Commissioner’s
determination. This rule also provides a reasonable
method for enforcing the requirements of section 7522.
Shea v. Commissioner, supra.
In the notice for 1991 and 1992 and in the notice for 1993,
respondent determined that petitioner20 had unreported Schedule C
gross receipts for each of the years at issue. In making those
determinations, respondent reconstructed under the bank deposits
method petitioner’s Schedule C gross receipts for each of those
years. Each of the notices included schedules in which respon-
dent listed for each of the years at issue respondent’s position
regarding the sources of the deposits into petitioner’s accounts
during each such year and the total amount of such deposits
during each such year from each such source. In reconstructing
the income of petitioner for the years at issue, respondent added
to the results produced by respondent’s bank deposits analysis
certain additional amounts, such as the amounts that petitioner
received when he cashed, and did not deposit, in whole or in part
certain checks or when he used certain checks to purchase certain
20Although respondent issued the notice for 1991 and 1992 to
petitioner and Ms. Brodsky, for convenience, when referring to
that notice we shall refer only to petitioner.
Page: Previous 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011