- 19 -
As a general rule, this Court will not look behind a notice
of deficiency. It does not usually examine the evidence used or
the propriety of the Commissioner’s motives, policy, or
procedures in making audit determinations. See Riland v.
Commissioner, 79 T.C. 185, 201 (1982); Greenberg’s Express, Inc.
v. Commissioner, 62 T.C. 324, 327-328 (1974); Human Engg.
Institute v. Commissioner, 61 T.C. 61, 66 (1973); Suarez v.
Commissioner, 58 T.C. 792, 814 (1972), overruled in part Guzzetta
v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. 173 (1982). However, this Court has
recognized an exception to the rule when there is substantial
evidence of unconstitutional conduct on the Commissioner’s part
and the integrity of the judicial process would be impugned if
the Court permitted the Commissioner to benefit from his conduct.
Suarez v. Commissioner, supra; see Greenberg’s Express, Inc. v.
Commissioner, supra. But even in these limited situations, this
Court has refused to hold the notice of deficiency null and void.
Human Engg. Institute v. Commissioner, supra; Suarez v.
Commissioner, supra; see Greenberg’s Express, Inc. v.
Commissioner, supra.
C. Collateral Estoppel
Respondent contends that collateral estoppel, also known as
issue preclusion, precludes petitioner from relitigating the
issue of whether his 1999 Federal income tax return was illegally
selected for audit. Respondent notes that the District Court has
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008