- 7 -
such notice.” We have said: “‘[T]he notice is only to advise
the person who is to pay the deficiency that the Commissioner
means to assess him; anything that does this unequivocally is
good enough.’” Jarvis v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. 646, 655-656
(1982) (quoting Olsen v. Helvering, 88 F.2d 650, 651 (2d Cir.
1937)). We have examined the notice, and we find that it is
sufficient.
C. Return Requirement
Petitioner insists that a deficiency in tax can be
determined only on the basis of a return of tax (either made by
the taxpayer or prepared by the Secretary. See sec. 6020(b).).
Petitioner is wrong. No return is necessary to determine a
deficiency. E.g., Roat v. Commissioner, 847 F.2d 1379, 1381-1382
(9th Cir. 1988); Clark v. Campbell, 501 F.2d 108, 117 (5th Cir.
1974) (“the Service may determine a deficiency in the absence of
a return”).
D. Authority To Sign the Notice
Petitioner challenges the authority of Lynne Walsh to sign
the November 29 letter. It is well settled that the Secretary or
his delegate may issue notices of deficiency. Secs. 6212(a),
7701(a)(11)(B) and (12)(A)(i) (allowing redelegations of that
authority); e.g., Everman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-137.
Delegation Order 4-8, set forth at Internal Revenue Manual (IRM)
sec. 1.2.43.2, delegates authority to issue notices of deficiency
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007