- 4 -
for 1991 instead of 1992; and (2) the notice of deficiency was
untimely because the period for assessment had expired on
December 31, 1997, more than 5 months before the notice of
deficiency was issued.
1. Jurisdiction
This Court's jurisdiction to redetermine a deficiency
depends on respondent's sending a notice of deficiency to a
taxpayer and that taxpayer's filing with this Court a timely
petition that we redetermine the deficiency determined against
that taxpayer in that notice of deficiency. See Normac, Inc. &
Normac International v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 142, 147 (1988),
and authorities there cited. In the instant case, respondent did
determine a deficiency against petitioners for 1991 income tax
and additions to tax, and petitioners filed a timely petition,
asking this Court to redetermine that deficiency and those
additions to tax.
This Court is not deprived of jurisdiction even if
respondent erred in one or more of the adjustments in the notice
of deficiency. Jurisdiction depends on whether respondent
determined a deficiency, not on whether respondent was correct.
See, e.g., Bowman v. Commissioner, 17 T.C. 681, 685 (1951).
Also, in a deficiency dispute the assertion of the bar of
the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense and not a
jurisdictional matter. See Tapper v. Commissioner, 766 F.2d 401,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011