- 33 -
the audit of RCR #1 for the tax years at issue that there was no
basis for asserting an overvaluation penalty.” As support for
this argument, petitioner cites a document taken from
respondent’s administrative file relating to petitioner’s request
for section 6015 relief. This document states that “Per
information from Joe Pierce, TEFRA Review Coordinator for the
Hoyt Project, the overvaluation penalty should not be proposed.”
The role of this document in the context of the ultimate issuance
of the notice of deficiency is unclear. However, petitioner’s
contention in her brief that this document shows that
respondent’s assertion of the addition to tax is “disingenuous”
is not persuasive. There is nothing in the record showing that
respondent’s assertion of the addition to tax in the notice of
deficiency was arbitrary or that it involved unconstitutional
conduct, and in the absence of such a showing this Court does not
go behind a notice of deficiency to ascertain respondent’s
motives in asserting a deficiency or addition to tax. Rountree
Cotton Co. v. Commissioner, 113 T.C. 422, 426 (1999), affd. 12
Fed. Appx. 641 (10th Cir. 2001); Greenberg’s Express, Inc. v.
Commissioner, 62 T.C. 324, 327-328 (1974).
Petitioner further argues that a tax underpayment is not
“attributable to” a taxpayer’s overvaluation of property where
“an alternative ground for the deficiency is sustained”, such as
where the relevant property was never placed in service. See,
Page: Previous 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011