- 17 -
called "gross ineptitude".8 In our view, an extension of Scar in
this manner would, as a general rule, directly conflict with the
well-settled rule that, absent extraordinary circumstances, we
will not look behind a notice of deficiency. Riland v.
Commissioner, 79 T.C. 185, 201 (1982); Jackson v. Commissioner,
73 T.C. 394, 400 (1979); Greenberg's Express, Inc. v.
Commissioner, 62 T.C. 324, 327-328 (1974). We fail to see any
extraordinary circumstances in the present case justifying a
probe into respondent's motives and procedures leading to the
issuance of the notice of deficiency.
In addition to arguing that the notice of deficiency is
invalid under Scar, petitioner maintains that the notice of
deficiency might be deemed invalid by virtue of respondent's
failure to comply with section 7517. Section 7517, enacted as
section 2008(a)(1) of the Tax Reform Act of 1976, Pub. L. 94-455,
90 Stat. 1520, 1891, provides in pertinent part:
(a) General Rule.--If the Secretary makes a
determination or a proposed determination of the value
of an item of property for purposes of the tax imposed
under chapter 11, 12, or 13, he shall furnish, on the
written request of the executor, donor, or the person
required to make the return of the tax imposed by
chapter 13 (as the case may be), to such executor,
8 Petitioner's reliance on Pearce v. Commissioner, 95 T.C.
250 (1990), revd. without published opinion 946 F.2d 1543 (5th
Cir. 1991), is misplaced. For the reasons explained in Stinnett
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-429, we shall not reconsider our
opinion in Pearce v. Commissioner, supra, or its reversal by the
Fifth Circuit, in deciding this case. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.1,
47.5.2, 47.5.3.
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