- 6 -
In making the adjustments, respondent's examining agent used
the RTVUE containing information from petitioner's 1994 tax
return as a substitute for the original of petitioner's 1994
individual tax return. Respondent adjusted petitioner's income
to take into account: (1) Distributions to petitioner by Levitz;
(2) certain disallowed itemized deductions; (3) disallowed
Schedule E losses; (4) disallowed net operating loss deductions;
and (5) computational adjustments.
On November 16, 1998, petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss
for lack of Jurisdiction. Petitioner alleges that the notice of
deficiency is invalid because respondent failed to examine
petitioner's 1994 income tax return. Petitioner alleges that the
adjustments relate to items which either: (1) Were not disclosed
on petitioner's 1994 return; (2) were automatic; (3) were
determined from respondent's own databases; or (4) were based on
information obtained solely from third party sources, such as
Levitz.
This Court's jurisdiction to redetermine a deficiency
depends upon the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency and a
timely filed petition. See Rule 13(a), (c); Levitt v.
Commissioner, 97 T.C. 437, 441 (1991).
Section 6212(a) expressly authorizes respondent, after
determining a deficiency, to send a notice of deficiency to the
taxpayer by certified or registered mail. At a minimum, a notice
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011