- 18 -
from being made until either the expiration of the 90 (or 150)
days or after the decision of the Tax Court becomes final. That
procedure provides an opportunity for a taxpayer to have his or
her tax liability reviewed by the Tax Court before an assessment
is made. Petitioners’ argument is without merit.
c. Audit Level Procedures
Petitioners argue that they were deprived of due process
because respondent allegedly did not follow administrative
procedures during the audit of their returns.
Proceedings before the Tax Court are de novo; therefore, our
determination of a taxpayer’s liability is based on the merits of
the case and not on the record developed at the administrative
level. Greenberg’s Express, Inc. v. Commissioner, 62 T.C. 324,
327-328 (1974); Johnston v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-315.
There is no statutory requirement that respondent must follow
certain administrative procedures prior to issuing a notice.
Further, this Court has held that a revenue agent’s failure to
follow administrative procedures prior to issuance of a notice of
deficiency does not invalidate the notice. See, e.g., Guilford
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1987-535 (lack of appellate
conference or 30-day letter does not affect the validity of
notice). In any event, petitioners failed to prove any
irregularities in respondent’s examination.
B. Discussion
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011