- 17 - described in the notice of deficiency and the new theory or basis requires the presentation of different evidence. Wayne Bolt & Nut Co. v. Commissioner, supra at 507. In such a situation, the burden of proof is placed on the Commissioner with respect to that issue. Id. The adjustments to petitioners’ income were made primarily on the basis of adjustments to the income reported on Bitker partnership tax returns for 1996 and 1997. Knowledge of the specific adjustments to the income of Bitker partnership for the years at issue is necessary to resolve the correctness of respondent’s determinations. Petitioners assert that, because the notices of deficiency did not include a copy of the examination report for the Bitker partnership or otherwise specify the adjustments to its income, respondent did not adequately describe the basis for, or explain, the adjustments in the notices of deficiency. Petitioners conclude, therefore, that the burden is on respondent pursuant to section 7522 and Rule 142(a). We agree that it would have been helpful if respondent either had attached a copy of the examination report showing the adjustments to partnership income to the notices of deficiency or had included the computations and adjustments from the Bitker partnership in the explanations of the adjustments. See, e.g., Brodsky v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-240 (each notice ofPage: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011