Estate of Doris L. Rickman, Deceased, Doris K. Rickman, Executrix - Page 12

                                       - 12 -                                         

          Section 6212(a) expressly authorizes respondent, after                      
          determining a deficiency, to send a notice of deficiency to the             
          taxpayer by certified or registered mail.                                   
               At a minimum, a notice of deficiency must indicate that                
          respondent has determined a deficiency in tax in a definite                 
          amount for a particular taxable year and that respondent intends            
          to assess the tax in due course.  Olsen v. Helvering, 88 F.2d               
          650, 651 (2d Cir. 1937); Perlmutter v. Commissioner, 44 T.C. 382,           
          400 (1965), affd. 373 F.2d 45 (10th Cir. 1967).  Although section           
          7522(a) provides the general rule that a notice of deficiency               
          shall describe the basis for, and identify the amounts (if any)             
          of tax due, an inadequate description shall not invalidate the              
          notice under that provision.                                                
               In Scar v. Commissioner, 814 F.2d 1363 (9th Cir. 1987),                
          revg. 81 T.C. 855 (1983), the taxpayers, after receiving a notice           
          of deficiency that disallowed a deduction from a partnership with           
          which the taxpayers had no connection, argued that the                      
          Commissioner failed to determine a deficiency as contemplated               
          under section 6212(a).  A review of various statements attached             
          to the notice of deficiency revealed that the Commissioner had              
          issued the notice without reviewing the taxpayers' tax return               
          (which admittedly had been filed).  Further, the Commissioner               
          admitted to having done so "to protect the government's                     
          interest".  Scar v. Commissioner, supra at 1365.                            





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