- 7 -
professional fees related to the merger."5 Since respondent
refuses to identify those expenses claimed on petitioner's return
that comprise $151,382, petitioner contends that respondent has
not "determined" a deficiency attributable to $151,382, citing
Scar v. Commissioner, 814 F.2d 1363 (9th Cir. 1987), revg. 81
T.C. 855 (1983).
This Court's jurisdiction to redetermine a deficiency is
based upon the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency and a
timely filed petition. Rule 13(a), (c); see Monge v.
Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989); Normac, Inc. v.
Commissioner, 90 T.C. 142, 147 (1988). At a minimum the notice
of deficiency must identify the taxpayer, indicate that the
Commissioner has made a determination of deficiency, and specify
the taxable year and amount of the deficiency. See Estate of
Yaeger v. Commissioner, 889 F.2d 29, 35 (2d Cir. 1989), affg. in
part, revg. in part, and remanding T.C. Memo. 1988-264. The case
of Scar v. Commissioner, supra, cited by petitioner, is
distinguishable from this case. In the Scar case, the
Commissioner issued a notice of deficiency disallowing deductions
5
Petitioner has not explained what is meant by its reference
to the $151,382 as a "plug". The Court is unsure whether this
means that $151,382 was added as a "catch-all" of other expenses,
whether supporting documentation was not available for the
$151,382, or whether the $658,000 claimed was intentionally
overstated out of an abundance of caution in attempting to
satisfy the disclosure requirements for purposes of sec. 6662(a).
Respondent's position at the hearing was that the $151,382 was
not an error by petitioner.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011