- 23 -
made aware of Section 530 at least prior to filing its petition
with the Court, petitioner failed therein to raise the statute.
Nonetheless, petitioner was subsequently granted leave to file an
amended petition specifically to place at issue its right to
relief under Section 530. The matter (of substantive relief
under Section 530(a), not, as previously noted, of a due process
violation based on Section 530(e)(1) notice procedures) therefore
was properly before the Court at trial, and petitioner was
afforded an opportunity to be heard. Accordingly, no actual
prejudice was sustained.
The above analysis is consistent with our recent
jurisprudence on the notice provision contained in section
3463(a) of the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform
Act of 1998, Pub. L. 105-206, 112 Stat. 767. In Smith v.
Commissioner, 114 T.C. 489 (2000), affd. 275 F.3d 912 (10th Cir.
2001), we considered this requirement that the Commissioner
include on each notice of deficiency the last date for filing a
petition with the Tax Court. We held that, where the
Commissioner failed to place such date on the notice, but the
taxpayers nonetheless received the notice and filed a petition in
a timely manner, the notice was valid. Id. at 492. In so
holding, we noted the absence of any delay prejudicial to the
taxpayers’ ability to petition the Court. Id. at 491-492.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011