-5-
corporation’s 1986 tax return purportedly taken from petitioner’s
records. The signature line on the tax return is blank.
Further, although the tax return includes as an attachment a
statement that Petito corporation elects to have the unified S
corporation audit and litigation procedures apply to it, the
signature line under the election is blank. The stipulation
states that respondent objects to the admission of the exhibit
“on the grounds of relevance and because the exhibit is neither
the original nor an exact duplicate thereof.” The parties did
not stipulate that the tax return was filed with the Internal
Revenue Service (IRS).
Discussion
1. Jurisdiction/Section 6241
The Court's jurisdiction is dependent upon a valid notice of
deficiency and a timely filed petition for redetermination. See
Rule 13(a) and (c); Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989);
Normac, Inc. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 142, 147 (1988).
Petitioner challenges the validity of the notice of deficiency on
the ground that respondent failed to comply with the unified S
corporation audit and litigation procedures. See, e.g., Maxwell
v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 783, 789 (1986) (taxpayer may challenge
validity of notice of deficiency on the ground that Commissioner
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011