Larry J. and Sherilyn Wadsworth - Page 7

                                        - 7 -                                         
          I.  Petitioners’ Amended Motion To Dismiss for Lack of                      
               Petitioners raise several arguments in support of their                
          amended motion to dismiss.                                                  
               Petitioners argue that because the sole explanation for the            
          adjustments in the notice of deficiency was an entry of “Sch E -            
          Inc/Loss-Prtnrship/S Corps-Passve/Non-Passve” on the Form 4549A,            
          the notice of deficiency was vague and incomprehensible and                 
          therefore invalid.2  In support of that argument petitioners                
          rely, inter alia, on section 7522(a) and Scar v. Commissioner,              
          814 F.2d 1363 (9th Cir. 1987), revg. 81 T.C. 855 (1983).3                   
               Petitioners argue that the notice of deficiency is invalid             
          because it fails to comply with section 7522(a).  Section 7522(a)           
          provides, in relevant part, that “Any notice to which this                  
          section applies shall describe the basis for, and identify the              
          amounts (if any) of, the tax due, interest, additional amounts,             
          additions to the tax, and assessable penalties included in such             
          notice.”  However, section 7522(a) goes on to provide that “An              

               2  As discussed supra, respondent also described the                   
          adjustments in the notice of deficiency in slightly more                    
          expansive language on the Form 886-A attached to the notice of              
               3  In support of their motion to dismiss for lack of                   
          jurisdiction petitioners also rely on Shea v. Commissioner, 112             
          T.C. 183 (1999).  The portion of Shea cited relates to a motion             
          to shift the burden of proof, and is discussed below.                       

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