- 36 -
Our jurisprudence relating to the validity of notices of
deficiency is not applicable to this case. Here we have an
unambiguous statute that requires respondent, upon a taxpayer’s
request, to hold a hearing. If the hearing is not held there can
be no determination, or any purported determination is invalid.
Assuming arguendo that the majority were correct in relying on the
jurisprudence relating to the validity of notices of deficiency,
the majority may not rely only on certain cases to the exclusion of
others where we have analyzed the facts and circumstances
surrounding the issuance of a notice of deficiency. Those cases
include instances where the tax was assessed and paid at the time
the notice of deficiency was issued, Estate of Crawford v.
Commissioner, 46 T.C. 262 (1966), where the Court must determine
whether the notice was sent to the last known address of the
taxpayer, Abeles v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 1019, 1035 (1988), and
affected items cases where partners failed to receive notification
of the underlying partnership proceeding as required by section
6223(a), Crowell v. Commissioner, 102 T.C. 683 (1994). Applying
the foregoing jurisprudence, when considering whether the notice of
determination is sufficient to grant us jurisdiction, it is
necessary and appropriate to assess whether petitioners had a
hearing.
Page: Previous 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011