- 4 -
Petitioners filed a response to respondent's response which
states in pertinent part as follows:
Petitioners were informed by I.R.S. Auditor that
additional information received late was being
considered and processed. This action by the I.R.S.
Auditor constitutes an implied extension on the part of
the Respondent. Petitioners would not have any way of
knowing what if any deduction had to be petitioned to
the Court until a final decision was rendered by the
Auditor. * * *
A hearing was conducted at the Court's motions session in
Washington, D.C. Petitioner Gregory Powell and counsel for
respondent appeared at the hearing and presented argument
respecting respondent's motion to dismiss. During the hearing,
Mr. Powell conceded that the revised examination report was
mailed to him without a cover letter and that he did not
otherwise discuss the continuing validity of the April 28, 1997,
notice of deficiency with respondent's agent. There is no
evidence in the record that petitioners ever requested Form 8626
(Agreement to Rescind Notice of Deficiency) from respondent or
that respondent's agents ever proffered Form 8626 to petitioners.
Discussion
The Court's jurisdiction to redetermine a deficiency depends
upon the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency and a timely
filed petition. Rule 13(a), (c); Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C.
22, 27 (1989); Normac, Inc. & Normac Intl. v. Commissioner, 90
T.C. 142, 147 (1988). Section 6212(a) expressly authorizes the
Commissioner, after determining a deficiency, to send a notice of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011