John E. Hunter, II and Alma E. Hunter - Page 14

                                       - 14 -                                         
          determination of a noncorporate taxpayer’s AMT requires a                   
          recomputation of taxable income, leading to a new tax base or an            
          alternative minimum taxable income.  Sec. 55(b)(2).  In making              
          the recomputation, the standard deduction and the deduction for             
          personal exemptions are not allowed.  Sec. 56(b)(1)(E).                     
               The Hunters challenge respondent’s determination on two                
          grounds.  First, the Hunters contest the validity of the notice             
          of deficiency.  As mentioned above, the notice of deficiency                
          refers to Form 1040, line 6e, when it should refer to line 6d,              
          and corrected the number of exemptions to which the Hunters were            
          entitled.  The Hunters contend that, as a result, “the tax was              
          applied to a category outside the scope of the exhibits.”  We               
          interpret this statement as an argument that the notice of                  
          deficiency is invalid.                                                      
               An error in a notice of deficiency does not necessarily                
          invalidate the notice.  Anderten v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.                
          1993-2.  Where the taxpayer is on notice of the nature of the               
          contested item and is not prejudiced or misled by the error, we             
          have held that the notice of deficiency is valid.  Hegarty v.               
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-143; see also Campbell v.                     
          Commissioner, 90 T.C. 110 (1988) (notice of deficiency was valid            
          even where computational sheets of a different taxpayer had been            
          attached); Anderten v. Commissioner, supra (notice of deficiency            

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011