- 19 -
A deficiency is not created by any act of the
respondent, but by the facts and the legal significance
thereof as set out in the taxpayer’s income tax return.
The so-called “60-day [now 90-day] letter” is no more
than notice to the taxpayer that the amount of a
deficiency disclosed by its return has been determined
under the applicable statute. In our opinion no
assessment, notice, or other act of the respondent is
necessary to establish liability for income taxes. We
think that any deficiency existing at the date of a
transfer of assets is a liability against such assets
under the trust fund theory. * * * [Cleveland v.
Commissioner, supra at 580-581 (fn. ref. omitted); see
also Maher v. Commissioner, supra at 457; Kuckenberg v.
Commissioner, 35 T.C. at 483.]
Hence, the relevant procedural requirement for a proper
assertion of transferee liability is that respondent send to the
transferee a notice under section 6901 which serves to “inform
the transferee of the extent and nature of the tax deficiency
which he is claiming against the transferor.” Kuckenberg v.
Commissioner, supra at 483-484. Moreover, this rule is equally
applicable regardless of whether respondent is asserting that the
transferor is liable only for unpaid taxes and deficiencies or
whether respondent is claiming that the transferor is liable for
additions to tax as well. See Bresson v. Commissioner, supra at
173; Gumm v. Commissioner, supra at 475; Kuckenberg v.
Commissioner, supra at 474.
We further note that the Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit, to which appeal in the instant case would normally lie,
has adopted the foregoing principle. See Kuckenberg v.
Commissioner, 309 F.2d at 202. In affirming the Tax Court on the
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011