- 9 -
notice of deficiency, we have consistently held that as a general
rule we do not look behind the notice to determine its validity.
Pietanza v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 729, 735 (1989), affd. without
published opinion 935 F.2d 1282 (3d Cir. 1991); Riland v.
Commissioner, 79 T.C. 185, 201 (1982); Estate of Brimm v.
Commissioner, 70 T.C. 15, 22 (1978); Greenberg’s Express, Inc. v.
Commissioner, 62 T.C. 324, 327 (1974). It is well established
that the Tax Court will generally examine only the notice of
deficiency to determine whether the notice was valid for
jurisdictional purposes. See Sealy Power, Ltd. v. Commissioner,
46 F.3d 382, 388 n.25 (5th Cir. 1995), affg. in part and revg.
in part T.C. Memo. 1992-168; Clapp v. Commissioner, 875 F.2d
1396, 1402 (9th Cir. 1989).
We believe the same principles are applicable to a section
6330 determination. Our jurisdiction under section 6330(d)(1)(A)
is established when there is a written notice that embodies a
6(...continued)
Much like the Court’s deficiency jurisdiction, the
Court’s jurisdiction under section 6330(d) is dependent
upon a valid determination letter and a timely filed
petition for review. See Rule 330(b). Like a notice
of deficiency under section 6213(a), an Appeals Office
determination letter is a taxpayer’s “ticket” to the
Tax Court. See Offiler v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 492,
498 (2000); see also Mulvania v. Commissioner, 81 T.C.
65, 67 (1983); Gati v. Commissioner, 113 T.C. 132, 134
(1999). Moreover, a petition for review under section
6330 must be filed with the appropriate court within 30
days of the mailing of the determination letter. See
McCune v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 114 (2000).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011