- 8 -
Commissioner had issued the notice "to protect the government's
interest". See Scar v. Commissioner, supra at 1365. The
taxpayers filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
This Court held the notice of deficiency to be valid and
denied the taxpayers' motion to dismiss. See Scar v.
Commissioner, 81 T.C. 855 (1983). On appeal, the Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit concluded that the Commissioner
must consider information relating to a particular taxpayer
before it can be said that the Commissioner determined a
deficiency with respect to that taxpayer. See Scar v.
Commissioner, 814 F.2d at 1368. With this standard in mind, the
court found the notice of deficiency to be invalid under section
6212(a) because the notice on its face revealed that the
Commissioner had not reviewed information relating to the
particular taxpayer or otherwise made a determination respecting
the taxpayers' liability for the particular taxable year. See
Scar v. Commissioner, supra at 1370.
Significantly, the courts applying Scar have limited the
rule established in that case to its facts. See Sealy Power,
Ltd. v. Commissioner, 46 F.3d 382, 387-388 (5th Cir. 1995), affg.
in part, revg. in part and remanding T.C. Memo. 1992-168; Kantor
v. Commissioner, 998 F.2d 1514, 1521-1522 (9th Cir. 1993), affg.
in part and revg. in part T.C. Memo. 1990-380; Bokum v.
Commissioner, 992 F.2d 1136, 1139 (11th Cir. 1993), affg. T.C.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011