- 31 -
stipulation of settled issues, we must determine that we have
jurisdiction over the matter to which the parties stipulated.
The Notice of Deficiency
The Court’s jurisdiction to redetermine a deficiency depends
upon the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency and a timely
filed petition. Rule 13(a),(c); Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C.
22, 27 (1989); Normac, Inc. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 142, 147
(1988). In the usual case, the Court will not look behind the
notice of deficiency to examine the evidence used by respondent
or the circumstances surrounding the determination.3 See
Petzoldt v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 661, 687-688 (1989). This is
because a trial before the Tax Court is a proceeding de novo; our
redetermination of a taxpayer’s tax liability must be based on
the merits of the case and not on any previous record developed
at the administrative level. See Greenberg’s Express, Inc. v.
Commissioner, 62 T.C. 324, 327-328 (1974). Moreover, even where
a taxpayer has made a showing that casts doubt on the validity of
respondent’s determination, the notice is generally not rendered
void, and it remains sufficient to vest this Court with
jurisdiction. See Suarez v. Commissioner, 58 T.C. 792, 814
(1972). Once vested, our jurisdiction is not affected by
subsequent events and remains unimpaired until we decide the
3An exception to the rule, not here at issue, is when the
Commissioner alleges that the taxpayer has received unreported
income. See Johnston v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-315.
Page: Previous 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011