- 14 -
was no basis in law for depriving the Commissioner of the
authority given to him by section 6214(a) to raise new issues and
claim additional deficiencies. Id. We conclude that the same
holds true in this case brought pursuant to section 7436.
A. Second Exam
Petitioner alleges that respondent’s affirmative allegations
that Mr. and Mrs. Evans should be classified as employees and
that petitioner compensated Mr. and Mrs. Evans through the
payment of commissions and other wages disguised as shareholder
loans, amounts to a second examination of petitioner which is not
permitted pursuant to section 7605(b). Petitioner mistakes
legitimately raised new issues for a second examination.
The statutory language and legislative history of section
7605(b) indicate that it was intended to apply under different
circumstances--that is, “where an overzealous tax examiner
harasses taxpayers by conducting multiple examinations”. Tallal
v. Commissioner, 88 T.C. 1192, 1195 (1987). By instituting a
proceeding in this Court, petitioner became subject to our Rules.
Id. at 1196. Legitimately raised new issues do not constitute an
unauthorized second inspection within the purview of section
7605(b).
B. Additional Cost to Petitioner
Petitioner further alleges that respondent’s affirmative
allegations will require that respondent review petitioner’s
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011