- 7 -
Discussion
I. Petitioners’ Amended Motion To Dismiss for Lack of
Jurisdiction
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
deficiency.
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