- 20 -
333; Slattery v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-274.8
The no-change letter stated, in effect, that the notice of
deficiency was inaccurate and could be disregarded and that the
filing a petition with the Tax Court was unnecessary. But the
no-change letter did not mention the possibility of rescinding
the notice as permitted by section 6212(d). The case law cited
in the previous paragraph, specifically including Powell v.
Commissioner, supra, generally requires that a rescission be
committed to a writing reflecting the parties’ mutual consent.
Accordingly, respondent does not contend that the no-change
letter itself effected a rescission of the notice of deficiency.
Thus, under the circumstances, we do not agree with respondent
that petitioner unreasonably protracted the proceedings when she
filed the Tax Court petition, which protected her rights as
explained above.9
However, petitioner did protract the court proceeding by:
(1) Requiring respondent’s district counsel to file an answer (by
not furnishing a copy of the no-change letter, which would have
permitted the immediate filing of a settlement stipulation
8 See also Rev. Proc. 88-17, 1988-1 C.B. 692, regarding the
procedure to be followed, and Form 8626 (Agreement to Rescind
Notice of Deficiency), regarding the IRS form to be utilized.
9 We also note that the commencement of a case in this
Court pursuant to a notice of deficiency generally precludes the
Commissioner from issuing any further notice of deficiency for
the same taxable year, see sec. 6212(c), whereas the rescission
of a notice of deficiency pursuant to sec. 6212(d) has no such
effect.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011