- 11 -
Commissioner, supra at 182; Virginia Educ. Fund v. Commissioner,
supra at 751; Achiro v. Commissioner, supra at 890; Estate of
Emerson v. Commissioner, 67 T.C. 612, 620 (1977).
When a taxpayer fails to file a return, as did petitioner,
it is as if she filed a return “showing a zero amount” for
purposes of determining a deficiency. Schiff v. United States,
919 F.2d 830, 832 (2d Cir. 1990); Roat v. Commissioner, 847 F.2d
1379, 1381 (9th Cir. 1988); sec. 301.6211-1(a), Proced. & Admin.
Regs.
In determining the deficiency, respondent allowed petitioner
only the standard deduction because, in the absence of a return
filed by petitioner, respondent had no evidence that there were
any other deductions allowable to her. Implicit in the
determination is the disallowance of any deductions other than
the standard deduction. When petitioner subsequently submitted
her 1999 return, she claimed deductions for capital loss
carryforwards and rental expenses. Petitioner made allegations
in her petition seeking the benefit of these deductions and
claiming an overpayment.
Respondent simply requested substantiation of the deductions
and did so as early as January 16, 2003--8 months before trial.
The request for substantiation of items petitioner claimed on the
return after the notice of deficiency was issued is not
inconsistent with respondent’s original determination and does
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011