- 8 -
We now turn to petitioners' alternative contention that the
revised examination report dated June 4, 1997, constitutes a
second notice of deficiency. In this regard, petitioners point
out that their petition was timely filed if measured from the
date of mailing of such letter.
It is well established that the Court lacks jurisdiction
over a petition that is filed with respect to a letter from the
Commissioner to the taxpayer that was not intended to constitute
a notice of deficiency. See Lerer v. Commissioner, 52 T.C. 358,
362-366 (1969); Schoenfeld v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-303,
n.2. In applying this principle in the present case, we are
satisfied that respondent did not intend for the revised
examination report to be considered a notice of deficiency.
Rather, the report merely served to advise petitioners that
respondent had considered the information that petitioners had
furnished and had concluded that such information provided
adequate substantiation for a small reduction in the amount of
the determination previously made. The notice of deficiency
dated April 28, 1997 states in clear language that "This letter
is a NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY * * *. * * * you have 90 days from the
above mailing date of this letter * * * to file a petition with
the United States Tax Court". We note that there is no record of
a transmittal letter having been sent with the revised
examination report dated June 4, 1997. Thus, there is nothing in
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011