- 8 -
Commissioner, supra. In this connection, petitioners point to
respondent’s letter of October 18, 1999, indicating an inability
at that time to secure and supply copies of petitioners’ 1996 and
1997 Forms 1040, and to correspondence between the parties which
reflected amounts due differing from those stated in the notice
of deficiency.
Subsequent caselaw, however, has limited application of the
theory espoused in Scar v. Commissioner, supra, to those
instances “‘where the notice of deficiency reveals on its face
that the Commissioner failed to make a determination.’” Kantor
v. Commissioner, 998 F.2d 1514, 1521-1522 (9th Cir. 1993)
(quoting Clapp v. Commissioner, 875 F.2d 1396, 1402 (9th Cir.
1989)), affg. in part and revg. in part on other grounds T.C.
Memo. 1990-380. Conversely, validity is established where the
“notices of deficiency in the record make absolutely clear that
the Commissioner did examine * * * [the taxpayers’] returns, and
did at least consider * * * [the taxpayers’] deductions.” Clapp
v. Commissioner, supra at 1402. It is the latter situation which
is present with respect to the case at bar.
The notice of deficiency references numerous amounts that
correspond directly to figures reported on petitioners’ returns.
The document also makes adjustments to specific items shown in
the Forms 1040 and states reasons therefor. Consequently, the
notice of deficiency is valid under Scar v. Commissioner, supra.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011