Jack A. Upchurch - Page 12

                                       - 12 -                                         
          consideration along with the surrounding circumstances, we must             
          decide in this case whether petitioner could have been reasonably           
          confused or misled as to the taxable year involved.                         
               The facts and circumstances in this case lead us to conclude           
          that the notice of deficiency is valid because it contained                 
          enough information such that petitioner could not reasonably be             
          deceived as to the taxable period involved (calendar year 1996).            
          Both the explanation of changes and the additional attached                 
          schedule contain figures that are directly traceable to                     
          petitioner’s 1996 gift tax return, including the value of the               
          gifts as shown on the return and the amount of tax previously               
          paid.  The additional schedule, though it does not indicate any             
          dates for the taxable period involved, details the three gifts              
          that petitioner made in 1996.  This schedule lists each donee of            
          the 1996 gifts, the percentage of the Upchurch Family Limited               
          Partnership given to each donee, the value of the gifts as                  
          reflected on petitioner’s 1996 gift tax return, and the corrected           
          values of each gift, which also match the examiner’s report for             
          1996.  The cover page of the notice and attachments asserted the            
          exact same amount of deficiency as was proposed in the previously           
          sent 30-day letter for calendar year 1996.  The adjustments and             
          computations in the attached explanation of tax changes are also            
          identical to those in the examiner’s report for calendar year               

Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007