- 5 -
statute. Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). The
Court’s jurisdiction to redetermine a deficiency depends upon the
issuance of a valid notice of deficiency and a timely filed
petition. Rule 13(a), (c); Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27
(1989); Normac, Inc. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 142, 147 (1988).
The pivotal issue in this case is whether respondent
determined a “deficiency” in petitioner’s 1993 Federal income tax
within the meaning of sections 6211 and 6665. Without such a
determination, the notice of deficiency issued to petitioner is
invalid.
The term “deficiency” is defined in section 6211(a) as the
amount by which the tax imposed by subtitle A or B, or chapter
41, 42, 43, or 44, of the Internal Revenue Code exceeds the
excess of the sum of the amount shown as the tax by a taxpayer on
the taxpayer’s return plus the amounts previously assessed (or
collected without assessment) as a deficiency, over the amount of
rebates made.
Consistent with section 6211(a), the definition of a
deficiency is influenced in part by the definition of the term
“tax”. In this regard, section 6665(a) states the general rule
that additions to tax are treated as “tax” for purposes of
assessment and collection. However, section 6665(b) provides an
exception to the general rule that an addition to tax under
section 6651 will be treated as a tax for purposes of the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011