- 6 -
for the reopening fall well within the parameters of that policy.
In any event, it is clear that Rev. Proc. 85-13 is a directory,
not mandatory, internal procedural set of rules which do not
provide a basis for rejecting a deficiency notice because of a
violation of its provisions. Collins v. Commissioner, 61 T.C.
693, 700-701 (1974).4 Petitioner makes no argument that the
deficiency notice does not otherwise meet the requirements of
section 6212. See Abeles v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 1019, 1025-
1027 (1988). In view of the foregoing, the validity of the
deficiency notice is not open to challenge, and we need not
explore whether we would have jurisdiction to cancel the notice
if the circumstances were such as to taint it. Collins v.
3(...continued)
1. There is evidence of fraud, malfeasance, collusion,
concealment or misrepresentation of a material fact; or
2. The prior closing involved a clearly defined
substantial error based on an established Service position
existing at the time of the previous examination; or
3. Other circumstances exist that indicate failure to
reopen would be a serious administrative omission.
.02 All reopening must be approved by the Chief,
Examination Division (District Director in Streamlined
District), or Chief, Compliance Division, for cases under
his/her jurisdiction. If an additional inspection of the
taxpayer's books of account is necessary, the notice to the
taxpayer required by section 7605(b) of the Code must be
signed by the Chief, Examination Division (District Director
in Streamlined Districts), or Chief, Compliance Division,
for cases under his/her jurisdiction. [Rev. Proc. 85-13,
1985-1 C.B. 515.]
4 See also Feldman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1985-132.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011