T.C. Memo. 1999-279
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
DALE L. WHITTINGTON, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 18229-98. Filed August 23, 1999.
Glen A. Stankee, for petitioner.
Leonard T. Provenzale, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
GOLDBERG, Special Trial Judge: This case is before the
Court on petitioner's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction.
The issue for decision is whether the notice of deficiency issued
in this case is invalid because respondent failed to determine a
- 2 -
deficiency as required by section 6212(a).1 A hearing was held
on petitioner's motion in Miami, Florida.
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.
The stipulation of facts and the attached exhibits are
incorporated herein by this reference. At the time the petition
was filed, petitioner resided in Orlando, Florida.
In 1998, respondent examined the U.S. Corporate Income Tax
Return, Form 1120, of Levitz Mobile Home Brokers, Inc. (Levitz)
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1994. Though the
examination resulted in a "no-change" report to Levitz, a
subchapter C corporation, respondent believed it had uncovered
facts which would result in changes to the income tax liability
of petitioner, who was the sole shareholder of Levitz during
1994.
Respondent found that petitioner had drawn total funds in
the amount of $356,124.922 from Levitz several times during the
1994 fiscal year and that the funds were used to pay petitioner's
personal expenses. Respondent concluded that the withdrawals may
have constituted constructive dividends from Levitz to
petitioner.
1
All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in
effect for the years in issue.
2
The funds were disbursed in the form of checks made payable
to petitioner.
- 3 -
On September 9, 1997, as part of his examination of Levitz,
respondent's examining agent requested petitioner's account
transcript for the year in issue. The transcript, known to
respondent as a writ-view (RTVUE), was ordered by the examining
agent to determine whether petitioner had filed a 1994 tax
return. The RTVUE is a summary of petitioner's individual tax
return and the various attached schedules.3 The RTVUE showed
that petitioner had filed a 1994 tax return with respondent on
October 15, 1995.
The examining agent examined the RTVUE for large, unusual,
or questionable items. The RTVUE showed that petitioner had: (1)
reported business income in the amount of $232,216; (2) claimed
itemized deductions in the amount of $23,404; (3) claimed capital
losses in the amount of $3,000; (4) claimed net operating losses
in the amount of $1,795,146; and (4) claimed Schedule E losses in
the amount of $973,006. The examining agent determined that the
net operating loss deductions and Schedule E losses were
questionable and requested the petitioner's 1994 income tax
return from respondent's service center on September 29, 1997.4
3
A RTVUE is a record of line items from Forms 1040, 1040A,
and 1040EZ and their accompanying schedules. The RTVUE is
created as the returns are processed at the service center.
4
For whatever reasons, the examining agent never received the
original of petitioner's 1994 income tax return from the service
center.
- 4 -
The RTVUE showed that petitioner reported negative adjusted
gross income in the amount of $2,235,940 and a total tax
liability in the amount of $13,733. The parties do not dispute
that the amounts listed on the RTVUE correctly reflect the
amounts reported on petitioner’s 1994 return. Petitioner did not
report any dividend income for the 1994 tax year.
On October 7, 1997, respondent sent petitioner a Form 4549-
CG, Income Tax Examination Changes, together with a Form 4564,
Information Document Request, requesting copies of petitioner's
1993 and 1994 tax returns. At that time, respondent also
requested that petitioner verify the net Schedule E losses in the
amount of $973,006 and net operating losses in the amount of
$1,795,146. Even though the examining agent contacted both
petitioner and petitioner's counsel several times, neither
provided copies of petitioner’s 1993 and 1994 tax returns nor
verified the losses as requested.
Respondent mailed a notice of proposed income tax changes
(30-day letter) to petitioner on November 6, 1997. Respondent
concluded that petitioner had received $356,124.92 from Levitz
and that only $47,579.12 of this amount was a nontaxable return
of capital. Respondent also concluded that petitioner had
overstated his net Schedule E losses in the amount of $973,006
and net operating loss deductions in the amount of $1,795,146.
Respondent calculated that petitioner had a corrected taxable
- 5 -
income of $835,768. The proposed adjustments were explained on
Form 886-A, Explanation of Items, included by respondent in the
30-day letter.
Petitioner filed a protest on December 5, 1997 and requested
that the case be referred to respondent's Appeals Office for a
hearing. On April 16, 1998, the Appeals officer sent a letter to
petitioner's counsel stating that the case had been received for
consideration and that a conference would be scheduled.
On May 18, 1998, the Appeals Office sent a letter and Form
872, Consent to Extend the Time to Assess Tax, to petitioner's
counsel requesting an extension of the statute of limitations for
the assessment of tax for the 1994 tax year.
The Appeals officer received no reply to the letter
requesting an extension of the statute of limitations nor to his
attempts to contact petitioner's counsel by phone. Since
petitioner would not extend the statute of limitations, the
Appeals officer concluded that a notice of deficiency should be
issued and that the notice of deficiency should not deviate from
the 30-day letter. A notice of deficiency was duly issued by
respondent on August 18, 1998.
In the notice of deficiency, respondent determined a
deficiency of $311,604 in petitioner's 1994 Federal income tax
and an addition to tax pursuant to section 6662 in the amount of
$62,321.
- 6 -
In making the adjustments, respondent's examining agent used
the RTVUE containing information from petitioner's 1994 tax
return as a substitute for the original of petitioner's 1994
individual tax return. Respondent adjusted petitioner's income
to take into account: (1) Distributions to petitioner by Levitz;
(2) certain disallowed itemized deductions; (3) disallowed
Schedule E losses; (4) disallowed net operating loss deductions;
and (5) computational adjustments.
On November 16, 1998, petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss
for lack of Jurisdiction. Petitioner alleges that the notice of
deficiency is invalid because respondent failed to examine
petitioner's 1994 income tax return. Petitioner alleges that the
adjustments relate to items which either: (1) Were not disclosed
on petitioner's 1994 return; (2) were automatic; (3) were
determined from respondent's own databases; or (4) were based on
information obtained solely from third party sources, such as
Levitz.
This Court's jurisdiction to redetermine a deficiency
depends upon the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency and a
timely filed petition. See Rule 13(a), (c); Levitt v.
Commissioner, 97 T.C. 437, 441 (1991).
Section 6212(a) expressly authorizes respondent, after
determining a deficiency, to send a notice of deficiency to the
taxpayer by certified or registered mail. At a minimum, a notice
- 7 -
of deficiency must indicate that respondent has determined a
deficiency in tax in a definite amount for a particular taxable
year and that respondent intends to assess the tax in due course.
See Olsen v. Helvering, 88 F.2d 650, 651 (2d Cir. 1937);
Perlmutter v. Commissioner, 44 T.C. 382, 400 (1965), affd. 373
F.2d 45 (10th Cir. 1967); see also sec. 7522.
Petitioner, in his Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
Jurisdiction, contends that respondent failed to make a
"determination" because respondent: (1) Failed to examine
petitioner's 1994 income tax return in determining a deficiency;
(2) failed to explain proposed adjustments in the 30-day letter;
(3) failed to hold an appeals conference; (4) failed to consider
evidence which may have reduced the amount of the deficiency; and
(5) did not vary the adjustments in the notice of deficiency from
those in the 30-day letter. Petitioner relies mainly on Scar v.
Commissioner, 814 F.2d 1363 (9th Cir. 1987), revg. 81 T.C. 855
(1983).
In Scar, the taxpayers received a notice of deficiency that
disallowed a loss deduction from a partnership which the
taxpayers had no connection with, and the notice computed a tax
due using the then-highest marginal rate. The taxpayers argued
that the Commissioner failed to determine a deficiency as
contemplated under section 6212(a). A review of various
statements attached to the notice of deficiency revealed that the
- 8 -
Commissioner had issued the notice "to protect the government's
interest". See Scar v. Commissioner, supra at 1365. The
taxpayers filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
This Court held the notice of deficiency to be valid and
denied the taxpayers' motion to dismiss. See Scar v.
Commissioner, 81 T.C. 855 (1983). On appeal, the Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit concluded that the Commissioner
must consider information relating to a particular taxpayer
before it can be said that the Commissioner determined a
deficiency with respect to that taxpayer. See Scar v.
Commissioner, 814 F.2d at 1368. With this standard in mind, the
court found the notice of deficiency to be invalid under section
6212(a) because the notice on its face revealed that the
Commissioner had not reviewed information relating to the
particular taxpayer or otherwise made a determination respecting
the taxpayers' liability for the particular taxable year. See
Scar v. Commissioner, supra at 1370.
Significantly, the courts applying Scar have limited the
rule established in that case to its facts. See Sealy Power,
Ltd. v. Commissioner, 46 F.3d 382, 387-388 (5th Cir. 1995), affg.
in part, revg. in part and remanding T.C. Memo. 1992-168; Kantor
v. Commissioner, 998 F.2d 1514, 1521-1522 (9th Cir. 1993), affg.
in part and revg. in part T.C. Memo. 1990-380; Bokum v.
Commissioner, 992 F.2d 1136, 1139 (11th Cir. 1993), affg. T.C.
- 9 -
Memo. 1990-21; Clapp v. Commissioner, 875 F.2d 1396, 1402 (9th
Cir. 1989); Campbell v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 110, 114-115
(1988).
Simply stated, the rule set forth in Scar v. Commissioner,
supra, applies in the narrow set of circumstances where the
notice of deficiency on its face reveals that respondent failed
to make a determination. See Campbell v. Commissioner, supra at
112-113.
The facts of the present case are readily distinguishable
from the facts in Scar. In the instant case, the notice does not
state that the income tax is being assessed at the maximum rate
to protect the governmental interest, nor does it misidentify
Levitz. The notice has no defects which make it incorrect on its
face. Additionally, Petitioner does not dispute that the amounts
appearing on the RTVUE are the same as the amounts appearing on
his 1994 income tax return. In sum, the notice does not reveal
on its face that respondent failed to determine adequately a
deficiency.
The information examined by respondent was taxpayer
specific. It was information taken directly from the tax return
of petitioner's wholly owned corporation and from petitioner's
own return when it was first processed by the service center.
Petitioner alleges that Levitz's return clearly shows that
current and accumulated earnings and profits did not exceed
- 10 -
$173,729, and it was therefore unreasonable for respondent to
determine that petitioner received distributions taxable as
dividends from Levitz in the amount of $308,545 that same tax
year. Petitioner contends that this shows that respondent failed
to make an adequate determination based on information respondent
possessed.
Respondent concluded that petitioner had received
$356,124.92 from Levitz and that only $47,579.12 of this amount
was a non-taxable return of capital. Respondent then examined
the RTVUE and established that petitioner had not reported
dividends on his 1994 return. Respondent requested information
concerning the withdrawals, information which petitioner failed
to provide. The possibility that the determination in the notice
of deficiency may ultimately be held to be erroneous does not
invalidate the notice of deficiency. See Stevens v.
Commissioner, 709 F.2d 12, 13 (5th Cir. 1983), affg. per curiam
T.C. Memo. 1982-352.
Petitioner was given the opportunity to provide respondent
with the necessary documentation concerning the proposed
adjustments but failed to do so. Petitioner also failed to meet
with an Appeals officer in an attempt to resolve the matter prior
to the issuance of the notice of deficiency.
Petitioner's chief contention is that respondent is required
to examine petitioner's actual income tax return, or a copy
- 11 -
thereof, and cannot rely on information contained in respondent's
records in determining a deficiency. Relying on Kong v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1990-480, petitioner alleges that this
Court held in that case that respondent was required physically
to examine a taxpayer's return in determining a deficiency and
was not entitled to rely on information recorded in its
databases. We disagree.
In Kong, as in Scar v. Commissioner, supra, respondent had
computed the tax due in the notice of deficiency at the maximum
rate. In Kong, respondent contended that it relied on the
taxpayer's administrative file, which also included a transcript
of account, in computing the tax due in the notice of deficiency.
This Court, however, found that respondent disregarded the
transcript of account in determining the deficiency because
respondent had merely multiplied the disallowed deduction by the
maximum rate and ignored other information available in the
transcript of account. In short, respondent in Kong, was not
prohibited from using information stored in its databases, but he
was prohibited from misusing or disregarding such stored
information. This Court stated:
Respondent did not use the return information to determine
the deficiency. * * * He ignored the relevant tax and income
data in the transcript of account. Indeed, all respondent
determined was that he did not have sufficient information
to avoid sending a notice of deficiency based upon
disallowance of a presumed loss claimed, utilizing the
maximum tax bracket. Kong v. Commissioner, supra.
- 12 -
In the instant case, respondent used a line-by-line
compilation of petitioner's tax return information. Petitioner
does not dispute that the amounts appearing on the RTVUE are the
same as the amounts appearing on his 1994 return. Additionally,
respondent did not merely utilize the maximum tax bracket in this
case.
Therefore, it is clear in this case that a valid
determination was made. The RTVUE records allowed respondent to
consider taxpayer specific information and reconstruct
petitioner's return for the purposes of the examination. The
RTVUE was used as a substitute for petitioner's 1994 return as it
was a line-by-line summary of the actual return. Not only did
respondent examine the return information, there were
communications between respondent's examining agent and
petitioner with respect to the adjustments at issue.
Petitioner's other contentions contained in his motion are
not based on the validity of the notice or the attached schedules
but are directed at perceived problems with the appeals and audit
process which we need not address and which do not deprive this
Court of jurisdiction. We find that the notice of deficiency in
this case was valid and hold that this Court
- 13 -
therefore has jurisdiction. Petitioner's motion to dismiss for
lack of jurisdiction will be denied.
An appropriate order
will be issued.