- 13 -
of Internal Revenue (Commissioner) did not provide the Court with
a copy of the notice of deficiency that the Commissioner claimed
had been prepared for the taxable year in question and issued to
the taxpayers involved in that case.4 Nor did the Commissioner
introduce other evidence in Pietanza that established the exis-
tence of such a notice of deficiency. The Commissioner produced
only a draft of such a notice, which did not contain the same
information that allegedly appeared in the notice of deficiency
that the Commissioner claimed was issued to the taxpayers. See
id. at 734. Moreover, the Commissioner “made no attempt to
present evidence indicating that a final notice was typed, dated,
and signed.” Pietanza v. Commissioner, supra at 740-741.
In contrast, in the present case, we have found that Ms.
Runyan prepared and finalized a notice of deficiency with respect
to petitioners’ taxable year 1997. The record contains an
initialed copy of that final notice. We are satisfied on the
record before us, including Ms. Runyan’s testimony,5 that that
4After we issued our opinion in Pietanza v. Commissioner, 92
T.C. 729 (1989), affd. without published opinion 935 F.2d 1282
(3d Cir. 1991), respondent located a copy of the notice of
deficiency in question and filed motions to reconsider and revise
that opinion and to vacate our Order of dismissal in that case.
We denied those motions because respondent failed to show that
respondent had exercised due diligence in previously attempting
to locate the notice of deficiency in question. See Pietanza v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1990-524.
5Although at trial the Court sometimes found Ms. Runyan’s
testimony to be confusing, Ms. Runyan subsequently clarified her
testimony, and we found Ms. Runyan to be credible. Ms. Runyan
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011