“It is well established that no particular form is required for a notice of deficiency; rather, to be valid a notice must state that the Commissioner has determined the amount of deficiency for a particular year and specify the amount or provide information necessary to compute it.” Nitschke, T. C. Memo. 2016-78, 4/26/16, at p. 6. Cary Douglas Pugh, J.
OK, so when Shona Pendse, Docket No. 7601-24, filed 11/25/24, proffers “… a February 12, 2024, email from the office of the United States Attorney for the District of Massachusetts, and specifically, an attachment thereto which provided a ‘Summary of Tax Due and Owing’ for Shona Pendse for tax years 2011, 2012, 2019, 2020, and 2021,” (Order, at p. 2), and argues same was the equivalent of a notice of deficiency, why does Ch J Kathleen (“TBS = The Big Shillelagh”) Kerrigan kick the e-mail, attachment, and Shona to the curb?
Ch J TBS says “the petition here was not based upon or instigated by a specific IRS notice expressly providing petitioner with the right to contest a particular IRS determination in this Court.” Order, at p. 3. But there is no “specific notice,” unless Nitschke, its predecessors, and descendants have been overruled. For Nitschke, see my blogpost “Long-Term Rounder,” 4/26/16.*
No doubt one of my ultra-sophisticated readers will invoke Section 6212(a), which mandates the SND “shall include a notice to the taxpayer of the taxpayer’s right to contact a local office of the taxpayer advocate and the location and phone number of the appropriate office.” Does want of the TAS notice invalidate the SND, or is it a mere procedural irregularity? No caselaw on that one, and anyway, IRS didn’t argue it or Judge Pugh didn’t pick up on it. I would point out that any court holding that any IRS communication that didn’t include the TAS notice was not a valid SND would paid to all this argy-bargy about miscellaneous billets doux.
And that the e-mailed attachment (the text of which we never see) was not mailed to Shona’s last known address means nothing, if she was able timely to petition it. All Section 6212(a) says is the Commissioner is authorized to mail it. Per Section 6213(a), mailing starts the 90-day (or offshore 150-day) clock running and stops collection; in any case, apparently Shona beat the clock.
But absent such a holding as hereinabove set forth, or a Loper-Bright-proof regulation mandating a form SND, how is Shona or anybody else supposed to know what is a SND?
Taishoff Law 