- 6 -
such persons are subject to tax under section 1 and section 11,
respectively, on their worldwide income.”).
Petitioners’ procedural arguments likewise are without
merit. Petitioners argue that the notice of deficiency is
invalid because they allegedly were denied an administrative
hearing, and because respondent failed to carry the burden of
proof at the administrative level.
The record is unclear as to whether petitioners were
provided the opportunity for an administrative hearing.
Regardless, it is readily apparent that an administrative hearing
in this case would have been futile. Petitioners never disputed
the amounts omitted from their tax return. Their positions were
certainly not going to be accepted by the Internal Revenue
Service. See Madge v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-370
(rejecting taxpayer’s due process claim in a deficiency suit and
finding that an administrative hearing would have been futile),
affd. per curiam without published opinion ___ F.3d ___ (8th Cir.
2001). As a general rule, this Court will not look behind a
deficiency notice to examine the evidence used, the propriety of
respondent’s motives, or the administrative policy or procedure
that informs respondent’s determinations. Pietanza v.
Commissioner, 92 T.C. 729, 735 (1989), affd. without published
opinion 935 F.2d 1282 (3d Cir. 1991); Greenberg’s Express, Inc.
v. Commissioner, 62 T.C. 324, 327 (1974); see Snyder v.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011