- 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 of
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011