- 11 -
We turn now to petitioners' alternative contention that the
IRS letter dated November 21, 1996, constitutes a second notice
of deficiency. In this regard, petitioners point out that their
petition was timely filed if measured from the date of mailing of
such letter.
A notice of deficiency must meet certain substantial
requirements. Abrams v. Commissioner, 787 F.2d 939, 941 (4th
Cir. 1986), affg. 84 T.C. 1308 (1985). Thus, the notice must, at
a minimum, disclose that the Commissioner has determined a
deficiency, the amount, the basis thereof, and the applicable
taxable year. Benzvi v. Commissioner, 787 F.2d 1541, 1542 (11th
Cir. 1986), affg. Abrams v. Commissioner, 84 T.C. 1308 (1985);
see Scar v. Commissioner, 814 F.2d 1363, 1367 (9th Cir. 1987),
revg. on another issue 81 T.C. 855 (1983); Foster v.
Commissioner, 80 T.C. 34, 229-230 (1983), affd. in part and
vacated in part on another issue 756 F.2d 1430 (9th Cir. 1985);
see also sec. 7522.
In the present case, we do not think that the IRS letter
dated November 21, 1996, constituted a notice of deficiency.
Such letter did not purport to determine any deficiency;
moreover, such letter was clearly not intended by respondent to
be a notice of deficiency. Rather, the IRS letter merely served
6(...continued)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011