- 6 -
jurisdiction because the petition was not filed within the time
provided by sections 6213(a) and 7502. In contrast, petitioners
contend that the notice of deficiency was rescinded and
supplanted by the revised examination report dated June 4, 1997,
and that their petition was timely filed when measured from the
date of mailing of such report.
Petitioners' contention that the notice of deficiency was
rescinded is similar to an argument that the Court considered and
rejected in Slattery v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-274. In
Slattery, we declined to find that the notice of deficiency had
been rescinded as follows:
We now turn to the question of whether the notice
of deficiency was rescinded. Section 6212(d) provides
that the Secretary may, with the consent of the
taxpayer, rescind any notice of deficiency mailed to
the taxpayer. Clearly, the statute requires mutual
consent by the Secretary and the taxpayer to effect a
rescission of a notice of deficiency.4 We know of no
authority deeming a notice of deficiency rescinded in
absence of a formal rescission. While the facts
presented herein may suggest that respondent considered
a rescission, she did not consent to a rescission.
Returning a case file from the 90-day section of
respondent's office to the examination division for
purposes of a conference is not tantamount to a
rescission, even though the conference, due to
miscommunication, was eventually scheduled for a date
subsequent to the running of the 90-day period.
Accordingly, we conclude that the notice of deficiency
involved herein was not rescinded pursuant to section
6212(d).
_________________
4 The Internal Revenue Service has provided
guidance to taxpayers wishing to consent to the
rescission of a notice of deficiency. See Rev. Proc.
88-17, 1988-1 C.B. 692. This revenue procedure
requires the taxpayer to request Form 8626, Agreement
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011