Jack A. Upchurch - Page 15
- 15 -
1978), affg. in part 66 T.C. 743 (1976) and 67 T.C. 176 (1976).
In both Sanderling and Burford, the Commissioner issued a notice
of deficiency covering an incorrect taxable period longer than
was appropriate. In Burford, the notice covered the calendar
year instead of a calendar quarter. In Sanderling, the
Commissioner issued the notice based on a liquidation date that
was later than the corporation’s actual liquidation date. Both
courts noted in their analysis that the incorrect taxable period
stated in the notice of deficiency fully encompassed the proper
period. Sanderling, Inc. v. Commissioner, supra at 176; Burford
v. Commissioner, supra at 99.
We decline petitioner’s invitation to hold that the
foregoing scenario presents the only situation where a notice of
deficiency bearing an incorrect year would constitute a valid
notice. Deriving such a meaning from Sanderling and Burford
disregards additional observations by the courts. As part of
their reasoning, both Burford and Sanderling also look at whether
the taxpayer could be misled by the error in the notice.
Sanderling, Inc. v. Commissioner, supra at 176; Burford v.
Commissioner, supra at 99;
Petitioner’s interpretation of Sanderling and Burford also
ignores our most recent caselaw (cited above) involving
typographical errors in notices of deficiency. The particular
Page: 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Last modified: November 10, 2007