- 8 - be objectively apparent." Powell v. Commissioner, supra. In this case, there is no objective manifestation of mutual consent by the parties to rescind the June 15, 1998, notice of deficiency. Contrary to petitioners’ argument, this Court has stated that "Further consideration of a taxpayer's case after the mailing of the notice of deficiency, coupled with respondent's concession of a portion of the previously determined deficiency, does not result in the rescission of the notice of deficiency." Id. (citing Hesse v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-333; Mullings v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-114; Slattery v. Commissioner, supra). Based on all the facts, we find that the June 15, 1998, notice of deficiency was not rescinded. Petitioners' petition was filed based on their position that the January 12, 1999, statement of tax owing constituted a new notice of deficiency. Because the June 15, 1999, notice of deficiency was not rescinded, the statement of tax owing could not operate as a new notice of deficiency. This Court lacks jurisdiction over a petition that is filed with respect to a letter from the Commissioner to the taxpayer, if the letter did not constitute a notice of deficiency. Powell v. Commissioner, supra. It is clear from respondent's correspondence that the statement of tax owing was not to be construed as a new notice of deficiency, nor did it alter the running of the 90-day period.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011