- 19 - There is no statutory basis for a no-change letter, cf. sec. 7121 (authorizing closing agreements that are generally final and conclusive), and we are aware of no case holding that a no-change letter is binding on the Commissioner. Under the circumstances, we think it was appropriate for petitioner to protect herself from the possibility that the no-change letter might not have represented respondent’s final position, e.g., that the no-change letter might have been issued before internal review was completed.7 The commencement of an action in this Court offered such protection. Respondent contends that petitioner had a duty to mitigate costs and that she should have requested that the notice of deficiency be rescinded. See sec. 6212(d); Hanashiro v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-78; Powell v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-108; see also Hesse v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997- 6(...continued) Court, we would appreciate it if you would sign and return the enclosed waiver form. This will permit us to assess the deficiency quickly and will limit the accumulation of interest. The enclosed envelope is for your convenience. If you decide not to sign and return the statement and you do not timely petition the Tax Court, the law requires us to assess and bill you for the deficiency after 90 days from the above mailing date of this letter (150 if this letter is addressed to you outside the United States). [Emphasis added.] 7 We note that the notice of deficiency was issued by the director of respondent’s Atlanta Service Center, whereas the no- change letter was issued by one of the director’s subordinates.Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011