Jack A. Upchurch - Page 13
- 13 -
The circumstances surrounding the issuance of the deficiency
notice lend further support for our conclusion that petitioner
could not have been misled as to the taxable year involved.
Petitioner knew that his 1996 gift tax return was under
examination and participated in its examination. Petitioner’s
representative spent a considerable amount of effort trying to
justify the valuation of the gifts petitioner made in 1996 that
gave rise to the 1996 gift tax deficiency. Petitioner
acknowledged the potential deficiency for 1996 gift tax in his
written protest of the 30-day letter proposing the deficiency and
explaining the adjustments. Petitioner thereafter participated
in Appeals office review of the examination officer’s findings.
Petitioner could not reasonably have been misled by the
references to the 1995 taxable year when he received the notice
of deficiency after 3 years of review and correspondence relating
to his 1996 gift tax return and when the notice and attached
schedules exclusively contained figures, explanations, and
adjustments corresponding to his 1996 gift tax return.
Petitioner has not convinced us that any other reasoning
should apply to this case. Petitioner selected the three main
cases where this Court has held the notices of deficiency
invalid. These cases that petitioner relies upon are
distinguishable: Century Data Sys. Inc. v. Commissioner, 80 T.C.
529 (1983), Atlas Oil & Ref. Corp. v. Commissioner, 17 T.C. 733
Page: 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Last modified: November 10, 2007