- 12 -
Petitioner has not shown substantial evidence of
unconstitutional conduct by respondent. Essentially,
respondent’s decisions in these cases were to audit petitioner’s
returns, to disallow business expense and home office deductions
for lack of substantiation, to adjust self-employment tax due as
a computational adjustment, to allow a child tax credit, and to
disallow certain dependency exemptions and the earned income
credit. There is nothing in the record showing that respondent’s
determination of the deficiencies in the notices of deficiency
was arbitrary or that it involved unconstitutional conduct, and
in the absence of such a showing this Court does not look behind
a notice of deficiency to ascertain the Commissioner’s motives in
determining a deficiency or an addition to tax. Moreover, these
are not cases in which review of respondent’s actions preceding
the issuance of the deficiency notices is necessary to determine
the merits of respondent’s substantive determination of a
deficiency. Petitioner made only vague and unsubstantiated
allegations which do not persuade us that he is entitled to
relief from liability for the income tax deficiencies and
penalties at issue in these cases.
To reflect the foregoing,
Decisions will be entered
under Rule 155.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Last modified: May 25, 2011