- 9 -
We disagree. There is no evidence that anyone fabricated the
computer records.
Petitioner cites Scar v. Commissioner, 814 F.2d 1363 (9th
Cir. 1987), revg. 81 T.C. 855 (1983), and Abrams v. Commissioner,
814 F.2d 1356 (9th Cir. 1987), affg. 84 T.C. 1308 (1985), for the
proposition that the determination in this case is invalid.
We disagree. The notice of determination was deemed invalid by
the Court of Appeals in Scar because it was clear from the notice
of deficiency itself that the Commissioner had determined a
deficiency based on a partnership in which the taxpayers owned no
interest. Scar v. Commissioner, supra at 1370. Here,
respondent’s determination was properly based on petitioner’s
activities and records. We lacked jurisdiction in Abrams because
the taxpayers filed petitions in the Tax Court based on a letter
that was not a notice of deficiency. Unlike Abrams, there was a
notice of deficiency in this case. Thus, neither Scar nor Abrams
applies here.
Petitioner contends that respondent’s determination is not
presumed to be correct because respondent used information to
reconstruct his income which would have been inadmissible under
the Federal Rules of Evidence if offered as evidence at trial.
We disagree. First, respondent used admissible evidence to
reconstruct petitioner’s income. See par. B-2, below. Second,
the Commissioner may determine a deficiency based “on hearsay or
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011