- 9 -
Memo. 1990-21; Clapp v. Commissioner, 875 F.2d 1396, 1402 (9th
Cir. 1989); Campbell v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 110, 114-115
(1988).
Simply stated, the rule set forth in Scar v. Commissioner,
supra, applies in the narrow set of circumstances where the
notice of deficiency on its face reveals that respondent failed
to make a determination. See Campbell v. Commissioner, supra at
112-113.
The facts of the present case are readily distinguishable
from the facts in Scar. In the instant case, the notice does not
state that the income tax is being assessed at the maximum rate
to protect the governmental interest, nor does it misidentify
Levitz. The notice has no defects which make it incorrect on its
face. Additionally, Petitioner does not dispute that the amounts
appearing on the RTVUE are the same as the amounts appearing on
his 1994 income tax return. In sum, the notice does not reveal
on its face that respondent failed to determine adequately a
deficiency.
The information examined by respondent was taxpayer
specific. It was information taken directly from the tax return
of petitioner's wholly owned corporation and from petitioner's
own return when it was first processed by the service center.
Petitioner alleges that Levitz's return clearly shows that
current and accumulated earnings and profits did not exceed
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011