- 16 -
May 31, 2000, in deciding whether the SFRs were section 6020(b)
returns. We distinguished Millsap because in Millsap the revenue
agent’s report was attached to the SFR. In Cabirac, there was no
evidence that the notice of proposed adjustments was attached to
the SFRs. We noted that the SFRs, which were stipulated
exhibits, appeared to have been prepared several months before
the notice of proposed adjustments, and there was no evidence
that the SFRs were ever put together with the notice of proposed
adjustments and filed as section 6020(b) returns. Id. at 172.
We specifically rejected the Commissioner’s suggestion “that the
presence of what are essentially ‘dummy returns’ and a revenue
agent’s report somewhere in the record meets the requirements of
section 6020(b)”, and we emphasized that our decisions in
Phillips and Millsap “mandate a greater degree of formality” for
section 6020(b) returns. Id.
In each of the cases discussed above, the record included
the SFRs that the Commissioner contended met the requirements of
section 6020(b) and/or stipulations that the SFRs had been filed.
In this case, however, although respondent alleged that an SFR
meeting the requirements of section 6020(b) was prepared and
filed, respondent did not introduce the SFR into evidence and did
not otherwise prove that an SFR meeting the requirements of
section 6020(b) had been made for 2003. The only evidence
regarding the SFR is a cryptic and summary reference to a
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011