- 8 -
contentions, section 6651(a)(2) is no more “narrowly drawn” than
section 6211(a), upon which petitioner relies. Indeed, section
6651(a)(2) refers to “the amount shown as tax on any return”,
whereas section 6211(a) refers to a return made by the taxpayer.
Petitioner also argues that a section 6020(b) return is
“prima facie good and sufficient” to furnish a basis for
assessing the tax liabilties stated thereon and that under
section 6201(a)(1), “a tax shown upon a return made by Respondent
is to be treated in the same manner as is a tax shown upon a
return filed by a taxpayer.” Petitioner reads section 6201(a)(1)
to state that “If Respondent has determined a tax, and has
disclosed the tax on a return by him, then Respondent is required
to assess the tax so determined and so disclosed without resort
to deficiency procedures.” We have previously rejected this same
argument in Millsap v. Commissioner, supra.
In Millsap v. Commissioner, supra, we rejected the notion
that respondent could preempt our deficiency procedures by filing
substitutes for return, stating:
In their current form, the basic deficiency
procedures are contained in sections 6211 through 6215.
Respondent is not entitled, with few exceptions, to
assess income tax until after the proper mailing of a
notice of deficiency and, if petitioned, until the
decision of this Court becomes final. Sec. 6213(a).
Accordingly, the historical and traditional purpose of
a return prepared and filed by the Commissioner would
be suspended or would not take effect until the
deficiency procedures are first completed. If the
return respondent prepares under section 6020(b)
authority is literally treated as “prima facie good and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011