Jack A. Upchurch - Page 16
- 16 -
situations confronted in Sanderling and Burford are merely a
subset of situations where a notice of deficiency containing
error may nonetheless be valid.
Finally, contrary to petitioner’s assertion, this is not a
case where we must “look behind” the notice of deficiency. We
are not called upon to review respondent’s procedures in order to
determine the validity of the notice of deficiency. Cf. Riland
v. Commissioner, 79 T.C. 185 (1982); Estate of Brimm v.
Commissioner, 70 T.C. 15 (1978); Greenberg’s Express, Inc. v.
Commissioner, 62 T.C. 324 (1974).
Since we hold that the notice of deficiency was valid for
tax year 1996, the resulting assessment of deficiency for
petitioner’s 1996 gift tax liability was also valid. The Appeals
officer’s verification that the requirements of applicable law
had been met was correct.
Petitioner raised no other issues at his Appeals hearing and
did not propose any collection alternatives. Accordingly, we
hold that issuing the notice of determination sustaining the lien
and levy notices was not an abuse of discretion. Respondent may
proceed with collection.
An appropriate order and
decision will be entered.
Page: 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Last modified: November 10, 2007