- 4 -
of deficiency disallowing that credit. The Holloways consented
to an assessment of the math error change, and their deposit was
used to pay it 90 days after the Commissioner sent them the
notice of deficiency. See Rev. Proc. 84-58, sec. 4.02(3), 1984-2
C.B. 501, 502. The Holloways responded by timely filing a
petition for redetermination of their 2002 tax.
The parties stipulated nearly all the facts in the case, but
there was a brief trial in Dallas (though the Holloways were
residents of Oklahoma when they filed their petition). After the
trial, the Holloways conceded that they were not entitled to the
adoption credit.
Discussion
The Commissioner initially challenged this Court’s
jurisdiction because the only issue remaining for us to decide is
the amount of the Holloways’ credit under section 29 or 43, which
he had adjusted with a math error notice instead of a notice of
deficiency. But, as he now recognizes, once the Holloways
properly “petitioned the Tax Court to redetermine the asserted
deficiency, the Tax Court acquired jurisdiction to decide the
entire gamut of possible issues that controlled the determination
of the amount of tax liability for the year in question.”
Russell v. United States, 592 F.2d 1069, 1072 (9th Cir. 1979);
see sec. 6512(a). We therefore agree with the parties that we
have jurisdiction.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011