Cir.); Country Pine Fin., LLC v. Comm’r, 98 T.C.M. (CCH) 410 (2009). 14 . Because Crispin resided in the United States Virgin Islands when he filed his petition for review by the Tax Court, the Court noted that an appeal in Crispin’s case would lie in this Circuit, and then followed our law in reaching its decision. Crispin sought review by the Tax Court pursuant to I.R.C. §§ 6211, 6212. We have jurisdiction under I.R.C. § 7482(a)(1). 15 . The Commissioner has also questioned the deductibility of Crispin’s CARDS loss under several other provisions of the Code, including whether the loss from a currency transaction was ordinary or capital, under I.R.C. § 988, and whether Crispin was "at risk” for the amount of the dedu 90) (same), and Todd v. Comm'r, 862 F.2d 540, 543 (5th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). However, Crispin’s reliance on Todd and
holding that a second deficiency notice issued for a taxable year was valid where it determined a deficiency in a different type of tax than did the earlier deficiency notice holding that the penalty was inapplicable when the deficiency was not due to overstated basis but to a failure to place property into service holding that where notice of deficiency fails adequately to describe the basis on which the commissioner relies for his deficiency determination burden shifts to the commissioner to prove the accuracy of the deficiency determination holding that overvaluation penalty did not apply where the taxpayers conceded other grounds of adjustment in the notice of deficiency including that they lacked a profit objective that the property at issue was not qualifying property and that the property was not placed in service holding that any deficiency in failure to object to hearsay did not prejudice defendant when testimony was cumulative of other evidence