Book Outline Section
|
Nature of Update
|
Location for current editions
|
Ch. 11 Notice of Deficiency
I. The Notice of
Deficiency and its Role in the System (A Reprise).
A. General.
B. What is a Notice of Deficiency?
1. A Deficiency.
2. The Notice of Deficiency.
a. The Notice, Determination and
Explanation.
(1) The Determination Requirement.
|
Discussion of a recent case, Dees v. Commissioner, 148 T.C. ___, No.
1 (2017) (reviewed opinion), here, holding that a notice of deficiency stating
$0.00 deficiency but with attachments indicating that a claimed tax benefit
had been denied was a valid notice of deficiency
|
Student Ed. P. 358 (after the 2d full paragraph)
Practitioner Ed. p. 504 (after the carryover paragraph at the top) |
The
tolerance for some level of imperfection in notices of deficiency is
understandable given the ability to resolve or moot the problems by filing a
Tax Court petition for redetermination.
But, what about a document in the regular form of a notice of deficiency
that states the amount of the deficiency as $0.00? A taxpayer receiving such a document would
know that it is described as a notice of deficiency and that he may file a
petition for redetermination is he does not agree. But the deficiency is stated to the $0.00,
and he may agree with that number. In a
2017 reviewed opinion of the Tax Court (with strong concurring and dissenting
opinions), the Court held that the standard form letter for a notice of deficiency
that stated that the deficiency amount was $0.00 but included attachments
clearly indicating that a deficiency had been determined because a claimed
credit was disallowed met the requirements for a notice of deficiency. n1635a The majority formulated the questions
presented as:
n1635a Dees v. Commissioner, 148 T.C. ___, No. 1
(2017) (reviewed opinion).
- “Whether the notice objectively put a reasonable taxpayer on notice that the Commissioner determined a deficiency in tax for a particular year and amount. If the notice, viewed objectively, sets forth this information, then it is a valid notice”
- If, however, that inquiry does not provide an answer (i.e., the notice is ambiguous as to the requirements for a deficiency, then, for the notice to be valid, the evidence “establish that the Commissioner made a determination and that the taxpayer was not misled by the ambiguous notice.” The majority elsewhere in the opinion frames the latter inquiry as to whether the “taxpayer was prejudiced by an ambiguous notice.” On the latter point, the majority concluded as follows:
The notice on its face is ambiguous, but the Commissioner has established that he made a determination and that Mr. Dees was not misled by the notice. Mr. Dees timely filed a petition to challenge the notice, and that petition makes clear that Mr. Dees understood that the Commissioner had disallowed his refundable credit: He stated in his petition both that the Commissioner had erred in denying his premium tax credit and that he had documents to substantiate his entitlement to the credit. This establishes that Mr. Dees was not misled by the notice.
n1635b Judge
Ashford’s concurring opinon says that “The opinion of the Court delineates a
two-prong approach (with both objective and subjective elements) to determining
our deficiency jurisdiction * * * *.”
As with
the last known address requirement for notices, a taxpayer desiring to present
this issue should consider the statute of limitations on assessment. If the taxpayer brings the issue to the IRS’s
attention while the statute is still open (either in some administrative
process or by petition to the Tax Court, the IRS may solve the problem by
issuing a new notice. If the taxpayer files
a petition in the Tax Court while the statute is still open, the mere filing of
the petition will suspend the statute of limitations until the Tax Court
decision is final even if the notice is ultimately determined by the Tax Court
to be invalid. n1635c
n1653c §§ 6213(a) (prohibition on assessment which
Tax Court petition for redetermination is pending; and 6503(a)(1) (suspension
during period of prohibition). See
Shockley v. Commissioner, 686 F.3d 1228 (11th Cir. 2012) (holding that the
filing of a Tax Court petition invoked the suspension even if the notice of
deficiency was invalid or the filing was not by the proper person; per §
6503(a)(1), the suspension occurs “if a proceeding in respect of the deficiency is
placed on the docket of the Tax Court”).
Addendum: Links to statutes cited:
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are moderated. Jack Townsend will review and approve comments only to make sure the comments are appropriate. Although comments can be made anonymously, please identify yourself (either by real name or pseudonymn) so that, over a few comments, readers will be able to better judge whether to read the comments and respond to the comments.