- 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