- 5 -
respondent did not give sufficient thought and consideration to
the notice, rendering it invalid as a "naked assessment".
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and this Court
have limited the holding in Scar to the narrow circumstances
where the notice of deficiency reveals on its face that no
determination was made. See Kantor v. Commissioner, 998 F.2d
1514, 1521-1522 (9th Cir. 1993), affg. in part and revg. in part
on another ground T.C. Memo. 1990-380; Clapp v. Commissioner, 875
F.2d 1396, 1402 (9th Cir. 1989), affg. an unreported Order of
this Court; Campbell v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 110 (1988). The
facts in the instant case are readily distinguishable from those
in Scar. The notice does not reveal on its face that respondent
failed to adequately determine a deficiency. In the instant
case, the notice indicated the information examined by respondent
was taxpayer specific because it stated: "Information on which
we based our adjustment was derived from your state's taxing
agency." Because the face of the notice does not reveal that the
Commissioner failed to make a determination, we hold that the
notice is valid.
II. Presumption of Correctness
Petitioners next contend that respondent should bear the
burden of proof in the instant case because respondent has failed
to produce predicate evidence linking petitioners to the
unreported income determined in the notice of deficiency. It is
well settled that taxpayers generally bear the burden of proving
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011