- 19 -
However, considering that Hibiscus and petitioner shared
corporate officers and the same address, we are satisfied that
delivery of the April 11, 1996, notice of deficiency to
petitioner also served to provide Hibiscus with timely notice of
respondent's determination to deal directly with petitioner in
respect of its tax liabilities for the years in issue within the
meaning of section 1.1502-77(a), Income Tax Regs.9 Consequently,
we conclude that the April 11, 1996, notice of deficiency is
valid. INI, Inc. v. Commissioner, supra.
Section 6212(c) provides that, with exceptions not
applicable here, if the Secretary has mailed to the taxpayer a
notice of deficiency, and the taxpayer files a timely petition
with the Tax Court, the Secretary shall have no right to issue a
further notice of deficiency to the taxpayer for the same taxable
year. See McCue v. Commissioner, 1 T.C. 986, 987-988 (1943).
Consistent with our holding that the April 11, 1996, notice of
deficiency is valid, and considering petitioner's timely petition
for redetermination assigned docket No. 14781-96, it follows that
the December 30, 1996 notice of deficiency is an invalid second
notice of deficiency within the meaning of section 6212(c).
McCue v. Commissioner, supra. Accordingly, we will grant
petitioner's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed in
9 The parties agree that Hibiscus had actual or
constructive notice of the Apr. 11, 1996, notice of deficiency by
Apr. 18, 1996.
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