- 40 -
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stated:
We further reject Greene’s contention that the Tax
Court lacked jurisdiction over him because the IRS
issued a notice of deficiency without first sending him
a 30-day letter * * * or without conducting formal
proceedings before the IRS Appeals Division. The Tax
Court’s jurisdiction does not depend upon any
preliminary proceedings, but requires only issuance of
a valid deficiency notice. See Kantor v. Commissioner,
998 F.2d 1514, 1521 (9th Cir. 1993). Because a
taxpayer is entitled to a de novo proceeding in the Tax
Court upon the filing of a timely petition for review,
this court will not look behind a deficiency notice to
question the procedures leading to a determination.
Id.
See also Smith v. United States, 478 F.2d 398 (5th Cir. 1973)
(30-day letter directory not mandatory, and therefore not
required); Rosenberg v. Commissioner, 450 F.2d 529 (10th Cir.
1971) (failure to offer Appeals hearing directory, not
mandatory), affg. T.C. Memo. 1970-201; Luhring v. Glotzbach, 304
F.2d 560, 563 (4th Cir. 1962) (“compliance with * * * [procedural
rules] is not essential to the validity of a notice of
deficiency.”); Bromberg v. Ingling, 300 F.2d 859, 861 (9th Cir.
1962) (“The 30-day letter * * * invites the taxpayer to come in
and see the commissioner and ‘argue’ with him if he wants to do
so. But the taxpayer is not required to come. And the 30-day
letter is not required by statute.”); Crowther v. Commissioner,
269 F.2d 292, 293 (9th Cir. 1959) (“30-day letter (not required
by law).”) revg. and remanding 28 T.C. 1293 (1957); Montgomery v.
Commissioner, 65 T.C. 511, 522 (1975) (30-day letter and
administrative hearings are not required); Greenberg’s Express,
Page: Previous 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011