- 6 - 607, 611 (2d Cir. 1993), affg. T.C. Memo. 1991-350; Pen Coal Corp. v. Commissioner, 107 T.C. 249, 254 (1996). That authorization encompasses the redetermination of deficiencies. See secs. 6214, 7442; Bregin v. Commissioner, 74 T.C. 1097, 1101 (1980); Midland Mortgage v. Commissioner, 73 T.C. 902, 907 (1980). The parties do not dispute that respondent issued a valid statutory notice of deficiency and that petitioner made a timely petition therefrom. Therefore, we have jurisdiction to redetermine the deficiency. See secs. 6212 and 6213; Rule 13(a), (c); Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989); Normac, Inc. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 142, 147 (1988). It is well settled that the Commissioner may determine a deficiency based upon an erroneous refund. See Miller v. Commissioner, 23 T.C. 565, 568 (1954), affd. 231 F.2d 8 (5th Cir. 1956); Oilbelt Motor Co. v. Commissioner, 16 B.T.A. 831 (1929). The question here is whether a deficiency exists. Section 6211(a) defines the term “deficiency” as the amount by which the tax imposed exceeds the excess of: (1) the sum of–- (A) the amount shown as the tax by the taxpayer upon his return, if a return was made by the taxpayer and an amount was shown as the tax by the taxpayer thereon, plus (B) the amounts previously assessed (or collected without assessment) as a deficiency, over–- (2) the amount of rebates, as defined in subsection (b)(2), made.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011