- 13 - With respect to what constitutes a new matter, we have stated: “A new theory that is presented to sustain a deficiency is treated as a new matter when it either alters the original deficiency or requires the presentation of different evidence.” Shea v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 183, 191 (1999) (quoting Wayne Bolt & Nut Co. v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 500, 507 (1989)). C. Notice and Pleadings 1. Notice The notice contains the following explanation of the principal adjustments: It is determined that the deductions of $1,300,231.00 in 1994 and $1,528,125.00 in 1995 for officers compensation are decreased $598,710.00 and $805,469.00, respectively, because it has not been established that any amounts greater than $701,521.00 in 1994 and $722,656.00 in 1995, * * * were for officers compensation. It has been established that the unallowed amounts were a distribution of earnings and profits to stockholder doctors. Accordingly, your taxable income is increased $598,710.00 in 1994 and $805,469.00 in 1995. 2. Petition By the petition, petitioner sets forth the following disagreement with respondent’s adjustments: Taxpayer disagrees with all changes and resulting tax * * * for years 1994 and 1995. Auditor limited deductible officers’ salaries based on his theory that reasonable doctors’ salaries were established by the salary paid to the new, less experienced non-officer doctor. There is no tax law to validate auditor’s theory and none was presented to taxpayer during the audit. * * *Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011