- 32 -
case. See GAF Corp. v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 519, 525 (2000);
Duggan v. Commissioner, 21 B.T.A. 740 (1930).
In the case at hand, petitioner contends that the notice of
deficiency is invalid because “respondent cannot recover
nonrebate refunds through the deficiency procedures; that is, by
issuing a notice of deficiency.” Petitioner says the tentative
refunds it received were nonrebate refunds and then leaps to the
conclusion that we have no jurisdiction to enter a decision on
the basis of the stipulation because nonrebate refunds do not
enter the formula for deficiencies, and the stipulation speaks of
a “deficiency”. Petitioner points to our opinion in Interlake
Corp. v. Commissioner, supra, and the bankruptcy court’s opinion,
both of which said that petitioner, as the former common parent
of the affiliated group, was an “unauthorized recipient” of the
tentative refunds. The problem with petitioner’s theory is that
it assumes respondent never determined a deficiency with respect
to the tentative refunds.4 Petitioner’s assumption ignores the
factual and legal circumstances surrounding the identification of
the common parent and the issuance of the notice of deficiency.
Respondent’s Determination
Section 6212(a) provides that if the Commissioner
“determines” a deficiency, he is authorized to send notice of the
4Respondent also determined deficiencies against petitioner
for 1974-78, 1980, and 1983.
Page: Previous 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011