- 18 -
for redetermination were filed with the Court with respect to
each notice. However, INI, Inc. (INI), the subsidiary
corporation, subsequently challenged the validity of the notice
of deficiency that respondent had issued to INI on the ground
that the separate notice was issued in violation of section
1.1502-77(a), Income Tax Regs.
Contrary to INI's position, the Court sustained the validity
of the notice of deficiency. In particular, although recognizing
that a common parent of a consolidated group of corporations
normally serves as agent for its subsidiaries, the Court observed
that a copy of the notice of deficiency issued to INI was
contemporaneously furnished to the common parent corporation.
Under the circumstances, the Court concluded that the notice of
deficiency was validly issued pursuant to the consolidated return
regulations on the ground that it served as notice to the common
parent corporation that respondent intended to deal directly with
INI pursuant to the final sentence of section 1.1502-77(a),
Income Tax Regs.
Applying similar reasoning in the present case, we conclude
that the April 11, 1996, notice of deficiency issued to
petitioner is valid. Of course, the facts in the present case
can be distinguished from those of INI, Inc. v. Commissioner,
supra, insofar as respondent did not directly furnish Hibiscus
with a copy of the April 11, 1996, notice of deficiency.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011