- 8 -
In the instant case, no notice of deficiency was issued. In
the absence of a notice of deficiency, we did not and, indeed,
could not have redetermined or sustained a deficiency
determination made by respondent. See Saso v. Commissioner, 93
T.C. 730, 735 (1989) (“If we are to redetermine a deficiency, our
jurisdiction is dependent upon the issuance of a notice of
deficiency.”). It follows that a section 6215 assessment could
not have been made in this case since that Code section
contemplates a redetermination of a deficiency by the Tax Court.
Petitioner, in its capacity as the tax matters partner of
ASA, did file a petition with the Tax Court. However, that
petition was filed pursuant to section 6226(a), not section
6213(a). A petition filed pursuant to section 6226(a) is termed
“a petition for a readjustment of the partnership items”. A
petition filed pursuant to section 6213(a) is termed “a petition
with the Tax Court for a redetermination of the deficiency”.
Section 6215(a) refers specifically to “the entire amount
redetermined as the deficiency by the decision of the Tax Court”.
We interpret section 6215(a) to refer exclusively to a petition
filed under section 6213(a) and a decision that was entered
pursuant to the deficiency procedures contained in sections 6211-
6216.
Our deficiency procedures do not extend to the adjustment of
partnership items or to deficiencies attributable to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011