- 9 -
determined by respondent in the notice of deficiency that was
issued to petitioner. Although it does not appear that the
District Director responded to this request, we observe that
petitioner's counsel was apparently provided with a copy of the
revenue agent's report on or about July 27, 1995.
Petitioner's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is
premised on the theory that the notice of deficiency is invalid
on the ground that respondent failed to make a valid
"determination" as required by Scar v. Commissioner, 814 F.2d
1363 (9th Cir. 1987), revg. 81 T.C. 855 (1983). Petitioner
subsequently filed an amendment to its motion to dismiss.
Relying primarily on Durkin v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 1329, 1402
(1986), affd. 872 F.2d 1271 (7th Cir. 1989), and Pearce v.
Commissioner, 95 T.C. 250 (1990), revd. without published opinion
946 F.2d 1543 (5th Cir. 1991), petitioner contends that the
notice of deficiency should be declared invalid on the grounds
that each of the adjustments set forth therein is without merit
and reflects the "gross ineptitude" of the persons involved in
preparing the notice.
Respondent filed an objection to petitioner's motion to
dismiss. Respondent maintains that the adjustments set forth in
the notice of deficiency were determined based upon a review of
petitioner's estate tax return, and, therefore, the notice of
deficiency is valid under Scar v. Commissioner, supra. Attached
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011