- 13 - The two requirements for our jurisdiction in a deficiency case are a valid notice of deficiency issued by the Commissioner and a timely petition filed by the taxpayer. Frieling v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 42, 46 (1983). The content of a petition filed in a deficiency case should conform to Rule 34(b). Rule 34(b)(8) provides that the petition shall contain: “A copy of the notice of deficiency * * * which shall be appended to the petition”. This Court has consistently followed a liberal policy with respect to treating as petitions documents timely filed by taxpayers and intended as petitions. O’Neil v. Commissioner, 66 T.C. 105, 107 (1976). However, we cannot treat a document as a petition without “some objective indication that the taxpayer contests the deficiency determined by respondent against that taxpayer.” Normac, Inc. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 142, 147-148 (1988); see also O’Neil v. Commissioner, supra. At a minimum, for purposes of our jurisdiction, an intended petition must contain (1) the amount of the deficiencies determined against the taxpayer, (2) the amount the taxpayer is contesting, and (3) the 15(...continued) but did not specifically argue that petitioner is collaterally estopped from raising the issue again in this proceeding. Even if respondent intended the discussion of Rothhammer as a collateral estoppel argument, respondent did not raise it as a defense in the pleadings, and we therefore deem it waived. See Rule 39; Sundstrand Corp. v. Commissioner, 96 T.C. 226, 349 (1991).Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011