- 4 -
Discussion
Validity of the Notice of Deficiency
At the evidentiary hearing, petitioner's counsel suggested
that the notice of deficiency was unsupported by any "ligaments
of fact" connecting petitioner to the income determined to have
been received by her. In a similar vein, petitioner's response
to respondent's motion to dismiss cites Weimerskirch v.
Commissioner, 596 F.2d 358 (9th Cir. 1979), revg. 67 T.C. 672
(1977), and Portillo v. Commissioner, 932 F.2d 1128 (5th Cir.
1991), affg. in part and revg. in part T.C. Memo. 1990-68, which
hold that a deficiency determination that is unsupported by some
evidentiary foundation linking the taxpayer to the alleged
income-producing activity is arbitrary and erroneous. The Court
of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, to which an appeal in this
case would ordinarily lie, adheres to this doctrine, including
the principle that the evidentiary foundation need only be
"minimal". Blohm v. Commissioner, 994 F.2d 1542, 1549 (11th Cir.
1993), affg. T.C. Memo. 1991-636.
In the notice of deficiency, respondent determined that
petitioner had unreported nonemployee compensation from Royal
Floridian and Accumen Realty. Petitioner failed to file a return
for 2001, and she has not submitted any other sworn statement
denying receipt of the alleged income. In fact, petitioner
averred in her petition that she is entitled to "personal and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007