- 13 -- 13 -
for the Ninth Circuit concluded that no “determination” had been
made; it held that the notice was null and void as a result and
dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction in favor of the
taxpayer.
Petitioner argues that respondent’s statutory notices to
petitioner, Mr. Johnston, and Ms. Ghavami, which attributed the
same amount of income to each of them, show that: (1) Respondent
failed to “determine” a deficiency in petitioner’s tax; (2) the
notice to petitioner was invalid as a result; and (3) we must
dismiss the case at hand in favor of petitioner under the
rationale set forth by the Court of Appeals in Scar. We
disagree.
In Johnston v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-315, Mr.
Johnston made an identical argument to support his claims that
the notice he received was invalid and that his case had to be
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. We concluded in Johnston
that this argument had no merit; we reach the same conclusion
about petitioner’s argument in the case at hand.
There is no need to repeat here the detailed legal analysis
set forth in our Johnston opinion. The conditions for the
application of Scar v. Commissioner, supra, simply do not exist
in the case at hand. Petitioner has not shown that no
determination was made, cf. Scar v. Commissioner, supra at 1367
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011