- 4 -
OPINION
A. The Substitute for Return and the Notice of Deficiency
Petitioner contends that this Court lacks jurisdiction
because the notice of deficiency is invalid. It appears the
foundation of petitioner’s argument is that respondent’s
substitute for return does not meet requirements of section
6020(b),4 and therefore, the notice of deficiency cannot be based
on that return.
We do not need to consider whether the substitute for return
meets the requirements of section 6020(b). The preparation of a
return on a taxpayer’s behalf is not a prerequisite to the
Commissioner’s determining and issuing a notice of deficiency.
Roat v. Commissioner, 847 F.2d 1379, 1381-1382 (9th Cir. 1988);
Hartman v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 542, 545-547 (1975); Stewart v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-212; Robinson v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 2002-316, affd. 73 Fed. Appx. 624 (4th Cir. 2003); Burnett
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-181, affd. 67 Fed. Appx. 248
(5th Cir. 2003). Therefore, we find that petitioner’s argument
is without merit.
4 Sec. 6020(b)(1) provides that “If any person fails to
make any return required by an internal revenue law or regulation
made thereunder at the time prescribed therefor * * * the
Secretary shall make such return from his own knowledge and from
such information as he can obtain through testimony or
otherwise.”
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011