- 14 -
petitioner’s motions is that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
would be required to proceed against either a trust or a limited
liability company rather than proceeding against petitioner
directly. The notices of deficiency, however, determined that
the deposits into specific bank accounts were income for services
performed by petitioner. Petitioner raised the entity theory,
and respondent’s arguments that the entities should be
disregarded as sham or that the trust was, in the alternative, a
grantor trust were raised in defense of petitioner’s arguments.
In any event, the IRS may proceed on alternative theories and
alternative notices in the circumstances indicated by the record
in this case. See Clapp v. Commissioner, 875 F.2d 1396, 1402
(9th Cir. 1989); Criss v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-62;
Universal Trust 06-15-90 v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-390.
The stipulation proposed by respondent, the motion for order
to show cause under Rule 91, the order to show cause, and the
order deeming facts stipulated for purposes of this case were all
consistent with Rule 91. The statements made in the stipulation
and the documents attached to it were all matters “which fairly
should not be in dispute.” See Rule 91(a). Petitioner did not
raise at any time a dispute as to the factual accuracy of the
stipulation. Her objections related solely to her erroneous
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011