- 14 -- 14 -
n.6, and the notice to petitioner is not invalid on its face,12
see Kantor v. Commissioner, 998 F.2d 1514, 1521-1522 (9th Cir.
1993) (Scar rule is limited to narrow circumstances where the
notice of deficiency reveals on its face that no determination
was made); Clapp v. Commissioner, 875 F.2d 1396, 1401 (9th Cir.
1989); Campbell v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 110 (1988).
The short answer to petitioner’s contention is that, under
the circumstances of the case at hand, respondent is entitled to
issue alternative notices attributing the same income to
different taxpayers. See Clapp v. Commissioner, supra at 1402.
We conclude that respondent examined information relating to
petitioner and determined a deficiency in petitioner’s tax.
Petitioner’s argument to the contrary has no merit; we will deny
petitioner’s motion to dismiss.
Respondent’s Motion To Dismiss
Mr. Chisum signed the petition on February 27, 1998, above
the title “Managing Agent for Trustee”. The caption Mr. Chisum
placed on the petition identified the “Petitioner” as “UNIVERSAL
TRUST 06-15-90". Neither the caption nor the body of the
petition identified petitioner’s trustee.
12 We note that the amounts of expense and distribution
deductions disallowed by respondent’s notice to petitioner were
identical to the amounts of those deductions claimed on the Form
1041.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011