- 16 - deficiency to the taxpayer by certified mail or registered mail”); see also Commissioner v. Oswego Falls Corp., 71 F.2d 673, 677 (2d Cir. 1934) (notice of deficiency need not be signed). Moreover, in Scar v. Commissioner, we held that “no particular form is required for a valid notice of deficiency * * * and the Commissioner need not explain how the deficiencies were determined.” 814 F.2d 1363, 1367 (9th Cir. 1987) (citation omitted). * * * Urban v. Commissioner, 964 F.2d 888, 889-890 (9th Cir. 1992), affg. T.C. Memo. 1991-220. In Scar v. Commissioner, 814 F.2d 1363, 1367 (9th Cir. 1987), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit considered a notice of deficiency that, on its face, revealed that no determination of a deficiency had been made with respect to the taxpayers in question for the year in question. See id. at 1370. The Court of Appeals held that such a notice was invalid and the petition contesting such notice should have been dismissed in the taxpayers’ favor for lack of jurisdiction. See id. Commenting on Scar, we have held: “Where the notice of deficiency does not reveal on its face that the Commissioner failed to make a determination, a presumption arises that there was a deficiency determination.” Campbell v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 110, 113 (1988). We have examined the notice and, on its face, it does not reveal that respondent failed to make a determination: It is addressed to petitioners, references their 1992 through 1995 tax years, states both that respondent has determined that petitioners owe additional tax or other amounts (or both) for such years and the size of those amounts, and setsPage: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011