Larry J. and Sherilyn Wadsworth - Page 8

                                        - 8 -                                         
          inadequate description under the preceding sentence shall not               
          invalidate such notice.”  We conclude that petitioners’ reliance            
          on section 7522(a) is misplaced.                                            
               In Scar v. Commissioner, supra, the U.S. Court of Appeals              
          for the Ninth Circuit (to which an appeal of this matter would              
          lie) held that the Commissioner must consider information                   
          relating to a particular taxpayer before the Commissioner can be            
          said to have determined a deficiency with respect to that                   
          taxpayer.  In Scar, the taxpayers received a notice of deficiency           
          that disallowed a loss deduction from a partnership in which the            
          taxpayers owned no interest.  The notice also revealed that the             
          Commissioner had computed the tax due using the highest marginal            
          tax rate without examining the return and without supplying any             
          basis for the applicability of that rate.  The Court of Appeals             
          held that a notice of deficiency is invalid if it is clear from             
          the notice itself that the Commissioner had not reviewed the                
          taxpayers’ return or otherwise made a determination of a                    
          deficiency with respect to the taxpayers’ liability for the                 
          particular taxable year.  Id. at 1370.                                      
               The Court of Appeals subsequently held that the rule                   
          established in Scar applies only where the notice of deficiency             
          reveals on its face that the Commissioner failed to make a                  
          determination.  See Kantor v. Commissioner, 998 F.2d 1514, 1521-            
          1522 (9th Cir. 1993), affg. in part and revg. in part on another            

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