- 24 -
under the Due Process Clause. As this Court has noted, even in a
criminal context defendants are generally required to establish
actual prejudice in order to obtain due process relief. Riland
v. Commissioner, 79 T.C. 185, 197-198 (1982) (involving a claimed
denial of due process on account of delay in issuance of the
subject deficiency notice). The record in the instant case is
devoid of evidence of such prejudice. Although petitioner was
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
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011