- 19 -
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has described the required
evidentiary foundation as “minimal”. Palmer v. IRS, 116 F.3d
1309, 1312-1313 (9th Cir. 1997).
Petitioner’s motion asserted that the notices in the cases
at hand are “naked assessments” that should not be presumed
correct, because respondent failed to show that petitioner
personally received the United Ready Mixed settlement proceeds in
1992, and respondent did not allow expense deductions to offset
petitioner’s reported (1992 notice) or unreported (1993/1994
notice) income. We disagree.
First, the “naked assessment” notion applies only in
unreported income situations. Petitioner reported the United
Ready Mixed settlement proceeds on his 1992 individual return.
Statements on a Federal tax return are admissions under the
Federal Rules of Evidence and will not be overcome without cogent
evidence that they are wrong. Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2); Estate of
Hall v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 312, 337-338 (1989); Lare v.
Commissioner, 62 T.C. 739, 750 (1974), affd. without published
opinion 521 F.2d 1399 (3d Cir. 1975). Thus, petitioner’s “self-
assessment” provided the predicate evidence necessary to link him
to the tax-generating activity in 1992. See Shriver v.
Commissioner, 85 T.C. 1, 4 (1985).8
8By a parity of reasoning, petitioner’s admission on his
return that he received the income would satisfy any burden on
respondent under sec. 6201(d) to produce evidence, in addition to
(continued...)
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011