- 7 -
respondent had determined a deficiency in his Federal income tax
for the year at issue. We attach no credence to petitioner’s
argument that he was misled by such an insignificant error.
Petitioner cites Scar v. Commissioner, supra, and Foster v.
Commissioner, 80 T.C. 34 (1983), affd. in part and vacated in
part 756 F.2d 1430 (9th Cir. 1985), for the proposition that a
“[single] deficiency must be found” for the notice of deficiency
to be valid. Petitioner’s interpretation of both of these cases
is misplaced.
In Scar, the taxpayers received a notice of deficiency that
disallowed a loss deduction from a partnership in which the
taxpayers owned no interest. Further, the notice computed a tax
due using the highest marginal tax rate at the time. In
considering whether the notice of deficiency was valid, the Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a notice of deficiency
is invalid if it is clear from the notice itself that the
Commissioner had not reviewed the taxpayers’ return or otherwise
made a determination of a deficiency with respect to the
taxpayers’ liability for the particular taxable year. Scar v.
Commissioner, supra at 1370.
The courts applying Scar have limited the rule established
in the case to its specific facts. See Kantor v. Commissioner,
998 F.2d 1514, 1521-1522 (9th Cir. 1993), affg. in part and revg.
in part T.C. Memo. 1990-380; Clapp v. Commissioner, 875 F.2d
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011