- 5 -
deficiency. In particular, petitioners argue that the $2,327.40
income tax deficiency determined in the notice differs from the
$1,153.23 referenced in the 30-day letter. That discrepancy,
according to petitioners, makes the deficiency notice unclear,
inaccurate, and invalid.1
The basic minimum requirements for a notice of deficiency
are the following: (1) It must advise a taxpayer that respondent
has determined a deficiency for a particular year; (2) it must
specify the amount of the deficiency; and (3) it must provide
sufficient information to permit the computation of the
deficiency. Portillo v. Commissioner, 932 F.2d 1128, 1132 (5th
Cir. 1991), affg. in part and revg. in part T.C. Memo. 1990-68.
The notice of deficiency sent to petitioners is in no way
contradictory or unclear on its face. It meets or exceeds the
minimum standards and provides petitioners with the amount, year,
and means to compute the deficiency.
Petitioners are correct in their observation that the
various tax liability amounts set forth in the 30-day letter are
inconsistent. They are also correct in observing that the
1 It is not clear how respondent treated the $1,153.23
payment made by petitioners prior to issuance of the notice of
deficiency. It appears that the $1,153.23 was not treated as an
assessable payment of tax because the notice determines a
$2,327.40 deficiency. See Rev. Proc. 2005-18, 2005-1 C.B. 798.
In any event, respondent has acknowledged petitioners’ payment,
and the Court expects that petitioners will not be required to
pay more than $2,327.40, plus any applicable interest.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011