- 16 -
Petitioner contends that respondent failed to make a
determination as required under section 6212(a) on the grounds:
(1) The adjustment described in paragraph (a) of the explanation
of adjustments was not adequately supported due to respondent's
failure to attach exhibits A and B referred to therein to the
notice of deficiency; (2) the valuation adjustments in respect of
the real estate listed on petitioner's return are purportedly
based on local real estate tax assessments for 1991 (as opposed
to 1990); (3) the adjustment described in paragraph (h) of the
explanation of adjustments has no basis in law or fact; and (4)
the adjustment described in paragraph (i) of the explanation of
adjustments contains certain errors in respect of both the date
of the transfer in question and the identity of the financial
institution involved in the transfer. In short, we are not
impressed with any of these contentions. Taking the notice of
deficiency as a whole, the errors and flaws that petitioner
relies on, while perhaps causing minor confusion, do not
demonstrate that respondent failed to make the requisite
"determination" contemplated by section 6212(a). See Mayerson v.
Commissioner, 47 T.C. 340, 348-349 (1966); Saint Paul Bottling
Co. v. Commissioner, 34 T.C. 1137 (1960).
We likewise reject petitioner's invitation to "carve out a
narrow extension of Scar", to be applied in cases involving so-
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