- 6 -
petitioners’ 1985 year in the instant cases because the notices
of deficiency were issued before a determination under section
1313(a) constituting a mitigating event had occurred.
Petitioners contend that the mitigation provisions under
sections 1311-1314 do not apply to petitioners’ 1985 year because
(1) the notices of deficiency were issued before a determination
under section 1313(a) constituting a mitigating event had
occurred, and (2) there has not yet been a determination
described in section 1312(3)(B).
We agree with respondent and with petitioners’ first
contention.
The question before us appears to be one of first impression
for this Court; it is whether a notice of deficiency can open for
limited purposes an otherwise closed year, when that notice (1)
alleges the applicability of the mitigation provisions to make an
adjustment in the closed year, and (2) was issued before the
occurrence of a mitigating “determination”. Or, as respondent
puts it, the question is “whether a premature notice of
deficiency can be cured”.
“The purpose of sections 1311-13154 is to mitigate the
effect of the statute of limitations in certain carefully
described situations.” Bradford v. Commissioner, 34 T.C. 1051,
4
Sec. 1315, a special effective date provision for the
mitigation provisions revision by the enactment of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1954, was repealed by the so-called “Deadwood”
title of the Tax Reform Act of 1976. of Pub.L. 94-455, Sec.
1901(a)(143) 90 Stat. 1520, 1788. Secs. 1311-1314 remain.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011