- 7 -
of deficiency must indicate that respondent has determined a
deficiency in tax in a definite amount for a particular taxable
year and that respondent intends to assess the tax in due course.
See Olsen v. Helvering, 88 F.2d 650, 651 (2d Cir. 1937);
Perlmutter v. Commissioner, 44 T.C. 382, 400 (1965), affd. 373
F.2d 45 (10th Cir. 1967); see also sec. 7522.
Petitioner, in his Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
Jurisdiction, contends that respondent failed to make a
"determination" because respondent: (1) Failed to examine
petitioner's 1994 income tax return in determining a deficiency;
(2) failed to explain proposed adjustments in the 30-day letter;
(3) failed to hold an appeals conference; (4) failed to consider
evidence which may have reduced the amount of the deficiency; and
(5) did not vary the adjustments in the notice of deficiency from
those in the 30-day letter. Petitioner relies mainly on Scar v.
Commissioner, 814 F.2d 1363 (9th Cir. 1987), revg. 81 T.C. 855
(1983).
In Scar, the taxpayers received a notice of deficiency that
disallowed a loss deduction from a partnership which the
taxpayers had no connection with, and the notice computed a tax
due using the then-highest marginal rate. The taxpayers argued
that the Commissioner failed to determine a deficiency as
contemplated under section 6212(a). A review of various
statements attached to the notice of deficiency revealed that the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011