- 8 -
1396, 1402 (9th Cir. 1989). Simply stated, the rule set forth in
Scar applies in the narrow set of circumstances where the notice
of deficiency on its face reveals that respondent failed to make
a determination. See Campbell v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 110, 112-
113 (1988).
Here the facts are in no way analogous to the facts in Scar.
Respondent did review petitioner’s 1998 tax return and made
adjustments to petitioner’s Schedule A and Schedule C. Based on
those adjustments, respondent determined a deficiency in tax for
the tax year at issue. The transposition error on the cover page
does not affect the validity of the notice.
Furthermore, the holding in Foster is inapplicable here and
does not stand for the proposition asserted by petitioner. See
Foster v. Commissioner, supra.
Additionally, petitioner cites Wilson v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1997-515, and Violette v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-
173, for the proposition that a “typographical error in a
critical place” on the notice of deficiency is sufficient to
invalidate the notice. Petitioner’s interpretation incorrectly
broadens the holding in each case to encompass all typographical
errors. The error in each of those cases was in the address to
which the deficiency notice was mailed and was deemed sufficient
to affect delivery of the notice. The facts in each case are
therefore easily distinguishable from the facts here.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011