- 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