- 33 -
deficiency to the taxpayer. Under section 6213(a), the taxpayer
may then file a petition with the Court, within a specified time,
for a “redetermination” of the deficiency. Thus, “it is not the
existence of a deficiency but the Commissioner’s determination of
a deficiency that provides a predicate for Tax Court
jurisdiction.” Hannan v. Commissioner, 52 T.C. 787, 791 (1969)
(citing H. Milgrim & Bros., Inc. v. Commissioner, 24 B.T.A. 853
(1931); O'Meara v. Commissioner, 11 B.T.A. 101, 109 (1928),
reversed on other issues 34 F.2d 390 (10th Cir. 1929)). “Indeed,
were this not true, then the absurd result would be that in every
case in which this Court determined that no deficiency existed,
our jurisdiction would be lost.” Id.
In the case at hand, when respondent issued the notice of
deficiency to petitioner, he made several determinations.
Prerequisite to the notice was the determination that petitioner
was the continuing common parent of the affiliated group, which,
after the restructuring, consisted of petitioner and AMC.
A central feature of the consolidated return regulations is
the role of the common parent as the exclusive agent of the group
with respect to all procedural matters.5 See S. Pac. Co. v.
Commissioner, 84 T.C. 395, 401 (1985). Section 1.1502-77(a),
5The unique treatment of the common parent is not limited to
procedural matters. For example, the common parent’s taxable
year determines the taxable year of the other members of the
group under sec. 1.1502-76, Income Tax Regs.; the common parent
is not subject to the basis adjustment rules under sec. 1.1502-
32, Income Tax Regs., and the common parent is not subject to the
separate return limitation year rules under sec. 1.1502-
1(f)(2)(i), Income Tax Regs.
Page: Previous 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011