- 15 -
theories set forth in our findings of fact. In the petition,
petitioners have assigned error to such adjustments but have
averred no facts in support of such assignments other than facts
concerning perceived procedural errors by respondent. On brief,
petitioners’ principal argument is that respondent has committed
procedural errors. We distill from the petition and petitioners’
briefs the following components of petitioners’ argument:
(1) They did not receive a valid notice of deficiency, (2) no tax
has been assessed, and (3) they were denied “due process” during
the examination of their returns.
2. Response to Petitioners’ Arguments
Respondent sees no merit in petitioners’ arguments. We
agree with that observation.
a. Validity of Notice
Petitioners allege defects in the notice, including that
it and its attachments (1) were not signed under penalties
of perjury, (2) do not cite any “taxing statute” or contain
“certified evidence” to support the adjustments, and
(3) constitute hearsay.
A short answer to most of petitioners’ complaints can be
found in an opinion of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit, the Court of Appeals to which any appeal in this case
likely would lie:
The Internal Revenue Code does not require the notice
of deficiency to be signed. See 26 U.S.C. �6212
(“[i]f the Secretary determines that there is a
deficiency * * * he is authorized to send such
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011