ual sec_5ol sy1 department of the treasury internal_revenue_service washington d c date jan employer_identification_number contact person identification_number telephone number t ev g dear sir or madam you requested rulings under sec_501 and of the internal_revenue_code this letter responds to your request facts h h is an organization recognized as exempt from federal_income_tax under sec_501 of the code and is described in sec_509 and sec_170 h has over licensed beds and provides a wide range of patient care services including general surgery orthopedic surgery ophthalmology urology obstetrics maternity care pediatrics outpatient surgery and general medical_care p p is a newly formed non-profit corporation recognized as exempt from federal_income_tax under sec_501 c of the code and is described in sec_509 upon completion of the proposed transaction transaction p will oversee and coordinate the activities of its affiliates h c and f which together with p are hereafter referred to as system c c is a newly formed non-profit corporation recognized as exempt from federal_income_tax under sec_501 of the code and is described in sec_509 and sec_170 upon completion of the proposed transaction c will operate an outpatient clinic f f is newly formed non-profit corporation recognized as exempt from federal_income_tax under sec_501 of the code and is described in sec_509 upon completion of the proposed transaction f will engage in fundraising on behalf of the system proposed transactions h's board_of directors determined it could better achieve its charitable purposes by integrating local physicians into its healthcare activities and mission h negotiated the purchase of the practices of physicians previously employed by a a large multi-specialty physician group operating in pursuant to the asset purchase agreement h agreed to purchase from a the assets and operations of three freestanding practice sites the transaction also includes the sole membership interest in w a freestanding ambulatory surgery center is currently anticipated the closing of the asset purchase agreement the closing will occur on or before date h’s service area it h states the negotiations were conducted at arm’s-length with the assistance of legal counsel from various law firms as well as an independent third-party healthcare consultant h also obtained a discounted cash_flow analysis as well as a fairness opinion to verify the proposed purchase_price was reasonable it is anticipated the purchase_price will be in the range of m upon completion of the proposed transaction the composition of the various system boards will be as follows p’s board h’s board voting directors voting directors community including h’s chair additional h director and f’s chair physicians including c’s president and c’s chair non-voting director system ceo community at least physicians including chief of medical staff system ceo non-voting directors h’s president if different from system ceo auxiliary organization president or designee e c’s board f’s board voting directors physicians system ceo non-voting directors clinic president clinic administrator up to voting directors up to community auxiliary organization designees system ceo p's board_of directors will be charged with overall responsibility for the strategic direction and charitable mission of system the boards of the system entities will be subject_to a substantive conflicts of interest policy p's board will hold certain reserved powers with respect to key organizational and operational matters affecting h c and f specifically p’s board_of directors will retain the following authority over h c and f review and approve any amendments or restatements of incorporation or bylaws of the corporation the articles of develop and approve the mission and vision statement of the corporation ratify the election of the board_of directors of the corporation and remove any directors so elected for cause ie for any act or omission inconsistent with the purposes mission vision and or written policies of the corporation ratify the election of the officers of the corporation and remove any or all officers so elected develop and approve system wide policies including financial transactions approval guidelines and a conflicts of interest policy review and approve all accounting and treasury systems and functions relating to the corporation review and approve the annual operating and capital budgets of the corporation review and approve the strategic plan s of the corporation and as part thereof review and evaluate existing and proposed services in order to ensure they meet the needs of the corporation’s and the system’s service area and are consistent with such strategic plan review and approve any borrowings guarantees or other forms of indebtedness to be incurred by the corporation bos approve the executive compensation policies plans and arrangements including incentive compensation_for executives employed by the corporation in the case of c p also has the authority to approve c’s annual budget for all professional compensation and to approve all compensation policies and plans including incentive compensation_for physicians employed by c review and approve any unbudgeted capital expenditures of the corporation exceeding dollar_figure individually or in the aggregate in any fiscal_year review and approve the plan of dissolution of the corporation review and approve any sale of assets or operations of the corporation exceeding dollar_figure individually or in the aggregate in any fiscal_year approve the merger or consolidation with the acquisition of or by or the affiliation with any hospital clinic or physician group relating to the corporation in the case of h approve the selection of any new site s as recommended by h's board after the transaction system will continue h's historic commitment to ensuring broad community access to health care both h and c will provide charitable medical services in response to the needs of indigent and underserved individuals in the community charity care does not refer to care provided to medicare or medicaid patients nor does it include write-offs nor discounted fee-for-service arrangements negotiated with payors in addition h and c will work together for the benefit of the local community through programs seminars workshops and other types of activities directed at ensuring public awareness of matters related to individual physical psychological and emotional health welfare and safety the system entities will also provide financial and other resources among themselves for the achievement of their overall common goal of best serving the health care needs of the community h c f and p will coordinate the methods locations personnel and resources for the direct provision of patient care for example this may mean the consolidation of particular types of health care activities or support functions in particular entities or physical locations best suited to patient care convenience efficiency and cost minimization the system entities will also engage in certain administrative arrangements with each other for example certain management-level employees of h c and f may become p employees in some cases individual employees may have responsibility for multiple entities under the direction of p's board and system management various inter-company arrangements likely will be established such inter-organizational arrangements may include billing and collection services information systems laboratory services certain administrative functions materials management care contracting budgeting and finance compliance and the lease of facilities and or personnel any and all of such arrangements will be structured to achieve cost savings and maximize ‘efficiencies in organizations’ resources and facilities for reimbursement on either a cost_basis or at market levels such arrangements may call community marketing managed planning strategic relations and in connection with the formation of system h will provide the initial capital to allow p c and f to become operational aside from initial capital needs it is possible other contributions and or loans will be made between the system entities this is consistent with the expectation that all assets and resources of the system will be applied for system needs irrespective of how such assets are titled or where they are located rulings requested you requested the following rulings h’s purchase from a of the assets and activities to be associated with c’s operations will not adversely impact h’s sec_501 tax exempt status h’s participation in the formation of the system will not adversely impact h’s sec_501 tax exempt status transactions and arrangements between p not result in unrelated_business_taxable_income under sec_511 of the code to p h c and f and will not otherwise adversely impact p's h’s c’s and f’s tax exempt status c and f will h law sec_501 of the code sec_501 of the code provides an exemption from federal_income_tax for organizations described in section are organized and operated exclusively for charitable educational or scientific purposes including organizations that c sec_1_501_c_3_-1 of the income_tax regulations provides that the term charitable is used in sec_501 of the code in its generally accepted legal sense revrul_69_545 c b charitable purpose within the meaning of sec_501 of the code recognizes that the promotion of health is a revrul_78_41 1978_1_cb_148 concludes a_trust created by an exempt hospital for the sole purpose of accumulating and holding funds to be used to satisfy malpractice claims against the hospital is operated exclusively for charitable purposes and is exempt under sec_501 of the code providing management and consultant's services to other unrelated exempt_organizations for a fee sufficient to produce a small profit does not further an exclusively exempt_purpose see 70_tc_352 g07 an organization providing laundry services on a centralized basis to exempt hospitals does not qualify for exemption under sec_501 see hcsc-laundry v united_states u s revrul_77_72 1977_1_cb_157 provides that indebtedness owed to a labor_union by its wholly owned tax-exempt subsidiary is not acquisition_indebtedness within the meaning of sec_514 of the code since the parent and subsidiary relationship shows the indebtedness to be merely a matter of accounting profit from its dealings with in geisinger health pian v united_states f 3rd 3rd cir geisinger the court recognized that an organization may qualify for exemption based on the integral_part_doctrine which arises from an exception to the feeder_organization rule set forth in sec_1_502-1 of the regulations which states if a subsidiary_organization of a tax-exempt_organization would itself be exempt on the ground its activities are an integral part of the exempt_activities of the parent organization its exemption will not be lost because as a matter of accounting between the two organizations the subsidiary derives a the parent organization the court also noted an entity seeking exemption as an integral part of another cannot primarily be engaged in an activity that would generate more than insubstantial unrelated_business_income if engaged in by the other entity in this regard the court followed the reasoning of sec_1_502-1 which contains an example of a subsidiary_organization that is not exempt from tax because it is operated for the primary purpose of carrying_on_a_trade_or_business which would be an unrelated_trade_or_business that is unrelated to exempt_activities if regularly carried on a subsidiary_organization is operated primarily for the purpose of furnishing electric power to consumers other than its parent organization and the parent's tax-exempt subsidiary organizations it is not exempt because such business would be an unrelated_trade_or_business if regularly carried on by the parent organization similarly if the organization is owned by several unrelated exempt_organizations and is operated for the purpose of furnishing electric power to each of them it is not exempt since such business would be an unrelated_trade_or_business if regularly carried on by any one of the tax-exempt organizations by the parent organization the examples state if accordingly the court in geisinger determined that application of the integral_part_doctrine requires at a minimum that an organization be in a parent and subsidiary relationship and that it not be carrying on an unrelated_trade_or_business that is unrelated to exempt purposes if regularly carried on by the parent analysis based on all the facts and circumstances we conclude h will not adversely affect its tax exempt status under sec_501 of the code by its involvement in the transaction as it will continue to promote health within the meaning of revrul_69_545 supra the sharing of assets personnel and or resources will not adversely affect the sec_501 status of h f c and p because these activities promote health within the meaning of revrul_69_545 supra ov sec_511 through of the code sec_511 of the code imposes a tax on the unrelated_business_taxable_income of organizations described in sec_50l c sec_512 of the code defines the term unrelated_business_taxable_income as the gross_income derived by any organization from any unrelated_trade_or_business regularly carried on by it less certain allowable deductions computed with the modifications listed in sec_512 sec_512 of the code provides generally that rents_from_real_property and its incidental related personal_property are not unrelated_business_income unless the property is debt- financed under sec_514 of the code debt-financed_property does not include any property substantially related to the exercise or performance by such organization of its charitable functions sec_512 of the code requires that notwithstanding paragraphs or the net_income realized with respect to debt-financed_property must be included in unrelated_business_taxable_income sec_512 of the code exempts from the definition of unrelated_business_taxable_income all gains and losses from the sale exchange or other_disposition of non-inventory items and items not held_for_sale in the ordinary course of business sec_512 of the code limits the exclusion of interest annuities royalties and rents provided by sec_512 and where such amounts are derived from a controlled organization sec_1_512_b_-1 of the regulations provides if an exempt_organization has control of another organization the controlling_organization shall include as an item_of_gross_income in computing its unrelated_business_taxable_income the amount of interest annuities royalties and rents derived from the controlled organization determined in accordance with the formula described in sec_512 of the code and sec_1_512_b_-1 of the regulations sec_513 of the code defines unrelated_trade_or_business as any trade_or_business the conduct of which is not substantially related aside from the need of the organization for income or funds or the use it makes of the profits derived to the exercise of the organization's exempt purposes or functions sec_513 of the code provides that in the case of a hospital the term unrelated_trade_or_business does not include the furnishing of one or more of the services described in sec_501 to one or more hospitals if such services are furnished solely to such hospitals which have facilities to serve not more than inpatients such services if performed on its own behalf by the recipient hospital would constitute activities in exercising or performing the purpose or function constituting the basis for its exemption and such services are provided at a fee or cost which does not exceed the actual cost of providing such services boy sec_1_513-1 of the regulations provides a trade_or_business is related to exempt purposes in the relevant sense only where the conduct of business activities has a causal relationship to the achievement of exempt purposes and it is substantially related only if the causal relationship is a substantial one the regulation states that for the conduct of trade_or_business from which a particular amount of gross_income is derived to be substantially related to purposes for which exemption is granted the production or distribution of the goods or performance of the services from which the gross_income is derived must contribute importantly to the accomplishment of those purposes sec_514 of the code provides for the taxation under sec_512 of income from debt- financed property sec_514 of the code however provides that the definition of debt-financed_property does not include any property substantially_all the use of which is substantially related to the exercise or performance by such organization of the charitable purposes constituting the basis for its exemption under sec_501 analysis provides regularly carried with respect to unrelated_trade_or_business sec_513 of the code makes it clear if a hospital on corporate services to another unrelated exempt_organization for a fee then such services are unrelated_trade_or_business unless they fall within the exception for certain hospital services provided by sec_513 however if the participating exempt_organizations are in a parent and subsidiary relationship then corporate services provided between them necessary to their being able to accomplish their exempt purposes are treated financial arrangements between them are viewed as merely a matter of accounting see sec_1 b of the regulations therefore transactions and arrangements between p h c and f will not result in unrelated_business_taxable_income within the meaning of sections of the code or business and unrelated trade other than an the as conclusion h’s purchase from a of the assets and activities to be associated with c’s operations will not adversely impact h’s sec_501 tax exempt status h's participation in the formation of the system will not adversely impact h’s sec_501 tax exempt status transactions and arrangements between p not result in unrelated_business_taxable_income under sec_511 of the code to p h c and f and will not otherwise adversely impact p’s h’s c’s and f's tax exempt status c and f will h these rulings are based on the understanding there will be no material changes in the facts upon which they are based these rulings are directed only to the organization that requested them sec_6110 of the code provides they may not be used or cited by others as precedent please keep a copy of this ruling letter in your permanent records a copy of this letter will be furnished to your exempt_organizations area manager if you have any questions about this ruling please contact the person whose name and telephone number are shown in the heading of this letter sincerely marvin signed marvin friedlander manager exempt_organizations atvin fried 42r pos technical group bh


internal_revenue_service p o box cincinnati oh release number release date date date legend x number y dollars amount dear department of the treasury employer_identification_number contact person - id number contact telephone number uil you asked for advance approval of your educational grant procedures under internal_revenue_code sec_4945 this approval is required because you are a private_foundation that is exempt from federal_income_tax our determination we approved your procedures for awarding educational grants based on the information you submitted and assuming you will conduct your program as proposed we determined that your procedures for awarding educational grants meet the requirements of code sec_4945 as a result expenditures you make under these procedures won't be taxable description of your request the purpose of your grant program is to award grants to support exceptionally promising young sculptors who wish to attend your annual conference the conference is a unique opportunity for sculptors and scholars to meet and engage with each other learn new methodologies for creating sculptures and discuss the current state of sculpture in the artistic and educational spheres you currently anticipate awarding approximately x grants per year but the exact number of grants awarded may vary from time to time depending on the availability of funds grants will generally be distributed in one lump sum to chosen recipients prior to the start of the conference each year the grants will cover the cost of a two-night hotel stay which you will pay for directly and include a small stipend of y dollars you will also waive the conference fee grant recipients are responsible for their own meals travel_expenses and other daily expenses by permitting young sculptors of exceptional talent and promise to attend the conference meet and learn from other artists and scholars and engage meaningfully on varied topics relating to sculpture and the arts the grant program will allow you to support and encourage the advancement of outstanding art and to foster and promote high- quality education and collaboration in the areas of sculpture and fine arts in furtherance of your charitable and educational_purposes eligible individuals generally will be sculptors between the ages of and who are citizens or residents of the united_states grants will be awarded on the basis of applicants’ exceptional accomplishment and promise in the area of sculpture and on the potential of the conference to enhance their sculpture-related and overall artistic education and skill you will also strive to ensure that selected applicants demonstrate significant cultural artistic and philosophical diversity you may expand and develop or modify these eligibility criteria as the grant program develops grants will be available without regard to race color religion creed national or ethnic origin age sex gender sexual orientation veteran’s status disability or any other legally recognized classification information about the grant program and an application will be included on your website and may be publicized through a brochure or similar materials eligible individuals will be required to apply directly to you each applicant will be required to submit images of six to twelve of his or her own works of sculpture as well as a biography or resume grant recipient review and selection may be a multiple-step process but all grants will be subject_to final approval by your board_of directors the board in some cases the board may directly review candidate applications and select the grant recipients based on its review in other cases the board may delegate the initial review process to a jury designated by the board composed of at least three artists who have achieved prominence in the field of sculpture the jury who will review the grant applications and select finalists to be submitted to the board for final review although not required in all cases individuals who pass the initial review process may be interviewed or asked to submit additional information the board will appoint jury members from among accomplished sculptors who have a variety of creative backgrounds and who are from various geographic regions in order to create a diverse mix of jury members jury members may be proposed to the board by individual directors staff members and others the jury members will not be revealed to the public and each jury member will be expected to serve for one year jury members will not receive remuneration of any kind for their service the jury members will change each year and each year’s grants review process will be treated as completely separate from and independent of the prior years’ processes in order to guarantee unbiased review jury members will not know whether applicants have received grants in prior years thus sculptors who have received grants in the past will be eligible to submit applications in subsequent years and such new applications will not be treated as applications for grant renewals letter catalog number 58222y relatives of your officers directors and employees or your substantial contributors or members of the jury and any other disqualified persons within the meaning of code sec_4946 are not eligible for the grant program participants in the grant program may not include anyone whose selection would result in private benefit to any of the aforementioned individuals grants will be made pursuant to written commitments from the grantees to abide by the grant program guidelines you will obtain final reports from the grant recipients describing the benefits they received from attending the conference and how this experience will impact their future artistic work other than the modest stipend of y dollars described above grant recipients will not receive cash grants therefore misuse of grant funds is not an issue you represent that you will complete the following arrange to receive and review grantee reports annually and upon completion of the purpose for which the grant was awarded investigate diversion of funds from their intended purposes and take all reasonable and appropriate steps to recover the diverted funds ensure other grant funds held by a grantee are used for their intended purposes and withhold further payments to grantees until you obtain grantees' assurances that future diversions will not occur and that grantees will take extraordinary precautions to prevent future diversion from occurring you represent that you will maintain the following all records relating to individual grants including information obtained to evaluate grantees identify a grantee is a disqualified_person establish the amount and purpose of each grant and establish that you undertook the supervision and investigation of grants described above basis for our determination the law imposes certain excise_taxes on the taxable_expenditures of private_foundations code sec_4945 a taxable_expenditure is any amount a private_foundation pays as a grant to an individual for travel study or other similar purposes however a grant that meets all of the following requirements of code sec_4945 is not a taxable_expenditure e e e - the foundation awards the grant on an objective and nondiscriminatory basis the irs approves in advance the procedure for awarding the grant the grant is - - - ascholarship or fellowship subject_to sec_117 and is to be used for study at an educational_organization described in sec_170 or a prize or award subject_to the provisions of sec_74 if the recipient of the prize or award is selected from the general_public or toachieve a specific objective produce a report or similar product or improve or enhance a literary artistic musical scientific teaching or other similar skill or talent of the recipient letter catalog number 58222y to receive approval of its educational grant procedures sec_53_4945-4 requires that a private_foundation show the grant procedure includes an objective and nondiscriminatory selection process the grant procedure results in the recipients performing the activities the grants were intended to finance the foundation plans to obtain reports to determine whether the recipients have performed the activities that the grants were intended to finance other conditions that apply to this determination this determination covers only the grant program described above this approval will apply to succeeding grant programs only if their standards and procedures don’t differ significantly from those described in your original request this determination applies only to you it may not be cited as precedent you cannot rely on the conclusions in this letter if the facts you provided have changed substantially you must report any significant changes in your program to the cincinnati office of exempt_organizations at internal_revenue_service exempt_organizations determinations p o box cincinnati oh you cannot make grants to your creators officers directors trustees foundation managers or members of selection committees or their relatives all funds distributed to individuals must be made on a charitable basis and must further the purposes of your organization you cannot award grants for a purpose that is inconsistent with code sec_170 you should keep adequate_records and case histories so that you can substantiate your grant distributions with the irs if necessary we've sent a copy of this letter to your representative as indicated in your power_of_attorney please keep a copy of this letter in your records letter catalog number 58222y if you have any questions please contact the person listed at the top of this letter sincerely jeffrey cooper director exempt_organizations rulings and agreements letter catalog number 58222y


t c summary opinion united_states tax_court frank michael giannantonio petitioner v commissioner of internal revenue respondent docket no 26425-06s filed date frank michael giannantonio pro_se john m janusz and christopher zera student for respondent ruwe judge this case was heard pursuant to the provisions of section of the internal_revenue_code in effect when the petition was filed pursuant to sec_7463 the decision to unless otherwise indicated all section references are to the internal_revenue_code in effect for the year at issue and all rule references are to the tax_court rules_of_practice and procedure be entered is not reviewable by any other court and this opinion shall not be treated as precedent for any other case respondent determined a dollar_figure deficiency in petitioner’s federal_income_tax the issues for decision are whether petitioner is entitled to a dependency_exemption deduction for his daughter hb whether petitioner is entitled to the child_tax_credit and whether petitioner is entitled to head_of_household filing_status background most of the facts have been stipulated and are so found the stipulation of facts and the attached exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference petitioner resided in new york when the petition was filed respondent sent a notice_of_deficiency to petitioner setting forth a deficiency of dollar_figure in income_tax for in the notice_of_deficiency respondent changed petitioner’s filing_status to single disallowed petitioner’s dependency_exemption deduction for hb and disallowed petitioner’s claimed child_tax_credit hb is petitioner’s daughter and jennifer boettcher ms boettcher is hb’s mother petitioner and ms boettcher have the court refers to minor children by their initials see rule a never been married and they lived apart at all times during the last months of calendar_year hb was the only dependent petitioner claimed on his federal_income_tax return ms boettcher however also claimed hb as a dependent on her federal_income_tax return ms boettcher had custody of hb for the greater portion of petitioner did not attach to his federal_income_tax return a written declaration signed by ms boettcher indicating that she would not claim hb as a dependent additionally ms boettcher testified at trial that she did not sign a written declaration stating that she would not claim hb as a dependent for and petitioner has not produced such a document nor alleged that it exists both petitioner and ms boettcher claim to have each provided more than half of hb’s support during petitioner approximated his expenses for caring for hb at dollar_figure during discussion as a general_rule the commissioner’s determinations set forth in a notice_of_deficiency are presumed correct and the taxpayer bears the burden of proving that these determinations are in error rule a 290_us_111 sec_6001 requires taxpayers to maintain records statements returns and to comply with such rules and regulations as prescribed by the secretary individual taxpayers are to keep permanent books_and_records sufficient to verify income deductions or other matters required to be shown on any informational or tax_return sec_1_6001-1 income_tax regs pursuant to sec_7491 the burden_of_proof as to factual issues may shift to the commissioner where the taxpayer introduces credible_evidence and complies with substantiation requirements maintains records and cooperates fully with reasonable requests for witnesses documents and other information petitioner has not met the requirements of sec_7491 because he has neither met the substantiation requirements nor introduced credible_evidence to support the deductions and credits at issue dependency_exemption deduction for sec_151 generally allows a taxpayer to deduct an annual exemption_amount for each dependent of the taxpayer in this regard sec_152 defines a dependent to include a daughter over half of whose support was received from the taxpayer see sec_152 if a child receives over half of his support during the calendar_year from parents who live apart at all times during the last months of the calendar_year and we note that the working families tax relief act of publaw_108_311 118_stat_1166 amended inter alia sec_151 sec_152 sec_24 and sec_2 effective for tax years beginning after date thus we apply the law as was applicable to tax_year ie as it existed prior to such amendment such child is in the custody of one or both of the parents for more than one-half of the calendar_year then the child shall be treated for purposes of subsection a as receiving over half of his support during the calendar_year from the parent having custody for a greater portion of the calendar_year hereinafter in this subsection referred to as the custodial_parent sec_152 if the requirements of sec_152 are met the child is treated as having received over half of his support from the custodial_parent and the custodial_parent is entitled to the dependency_exemption deduction the noncustodial_parent can gain entitlement to the deduction if the custodial_parent executes a valid written declaration under sec_152 releasing the claim to the deduction 121_tc_245 petitioner does not contend that he is the custodial_parent in fact in his petition petitioner states i never believed that the custodial_parent ms boettcher would claim our daughter petitioner’s contention is that the special support_test in sec_152 does not apply to parents who have never married such as himself for support petitioner relies on an office_of_chief_counsel litigation_guideline_memorandum which reflected the position that the special support_test did not apply to parents who have never married each other chief_counsel_advice date this court previously addressed this argument in king v commissioner supra in king this court acknowledged that the commissioner has at times taken inconsistent positions on this matter and the court set out to resolve the issue by turning to the statutory language of sec_152 id pincite in reference to sec_152 we stated the statute specifically provides that the test applies not only to divorced and certain separated parents but to parents who live apart at all times during the last months of the calendar_year there is no requirement in the statute that parents have married each other before the special support_test can apply sec_152 applies to any parents regardless of marital status as long as they lived apart at all times for at least the last months of the calendar_year id pincite although we found the language of sec_152 to be unambiguous we endeavored to explain further that the legislative_history of sec_152 does not provide support for deviating from the plain meaning of the statute id pincite- indeed after review of the legislative_history of sec_152 we further stated neither the house bill nor the conference_report states that the amendment to sec_152 was intended to apply only to married parents indeed applying sec_152 to both married parents and parents who have never married each other is consistent with the stated purpose of resolving dependency disputes without the commissioner’s involvement in cases where parents both claim the dependency_exemption deductions id pincite moreover we have applied sec_152 to parents who had never married each other in cases both before and after our holding in king see barrett v commissioner tcmemo_2008_ smith v commissioner tcmemo_2006_163 hughes v commissioner tcmemo_2000_143 brignac v commissioner tcmemo_1999_387 we decline petitioner’s invitation to overrule this precedent which we find is indistinguishable from the present case therefore the special support_test in sec_152 applies and ms boettcher is treated as having provided over half of hb’s support for she will be entitled to the dependency_exemption deduction unless pursuant to sec_152 she released her claim to the exemption deduction for ms boettcher testified that she did not sign a written declaration agreeing not to claim hb as her dependent furthermore petitioner has established neither that such a declaration was ever made nor that such a declaration was attached to either his or any prior federal_income_tax return see sec_152 because petitioner is not treated as the custodial_parent under sec_152 and has not established that ms boettcher executed a written declaration releasing her claim to the dependency_exemption deduction under sec_152 it follows that hb is not treated as having received over half of her support from petitioner thus hb does not qualify as petitioner’s dependent under sec_152 the failure to establish hb as his dependent under sec_152 precludes petitioner from claiming entitlement to the dependency_exemption deduction under sec_151 accordingly we sustain respondent’s determination to disallow petitioner’s claimed dependency_exemption deduction for hb child_tax_credit sec_24 authorizes a tax_credit with respect to each qualifying_child of the taxpayer for this purpose the term qualifying_child means any individual if inter alia the taxpayer is allowed a deduction under sec_151 with respect to such individual for the taxable_year sec_24 we have already held that petitioner is not allowed a deduction with respect to hb as a dependent under sec_151 therefore it follows that hb is not a qualifying_child and petitioner does not qualify for the child_tax_credit accordingly we sustain respondent’s determination to disallow petitioner’s claimed child_tax_credit for head_of_household filing_status sec_1 imposes a special income_tax rate on an individual filing as head_of_household as applied in this context sec_2 defines a head of a household as an unmarried individual who maintains as his home a household which constitutes for more than one-half of the taxable_year the principal_place_of_abode of inter alios a daughter of the taxpayer hb’s principal_place_of_abode was not petitioner’s residence for more than one-half of the taxable_year thus it follows that petitioner is not entitled to head_of_household filing_status accordingly respondent’s adjustment to petitioner’s filing_status is sustained we have considered all of the parties’ contentions and to the extent not addressed herein we conclude those contentions are either without merit or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues in this case to reflect the foregoing decision will be entered for respondent


internal_revenue_service number release date index number -------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------- ------------------------------------- ------------------------------------ department of the treasury washington dc third party communication none date of communication not applicable_person to contact ------------------------- id no ----------------- ----------------------------------------------------- telephone number ---------------------- refer reply to cc ita b05 plr-110349-14 date august legend ----------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- taxpayer corporation --------------------------------------------------- partnership_tax_year accountants ------------------------------------- ------- ----------------- dear --------------- this is in response to your letter of date requesting an extension of time under sec_301_9100-1 and sec_301_9100-3 of the regulations on procedure and administration for taxpayer to file an election under sec_168 of the internal_revenue_code facts taxpayer is wholly-owned by corporation a tax-exempt_entity taxpayer is a member of partnership a limited_partnership partnership developed a low-income_housing project in tax_year since taxpayer is wholly-owned by corporation taxpayer is a tax-exempt_controlled_entity within the meaning of sec_168 and a portion of partnership’s depreciable_property is tax-exempt_use_property a designation of tax-exempt_use_property affects the depreciation that partnership can take for its depreciable_property taxpayer may elect under sec_168 not to be treated as a tax-exempt_entity for purposes of sec_168 this election must comply with the requirements of sec_301_9100-7t of the temporary regulations on procedure and administration plr-110349-14 taxpayer intended to file the sec_168 election for tax_year partnership’s partnership_agreement required taxpayer to make the election under sec_168 during tax_year the accounting firm preparing taxpayer’s tax_return for tax_year failed to prepare the election and attach it to the return partnership filed its tax_year tax_return and information returns as if taxpayer had made the sec_168 election accountants were retained to prepare the tax returns for taxpayer and partnership accountants inadvertently failed to include the sec_168 election with taxpayer’s tax_year tax_return accountant’s subsequently discovered that the sec_168 election had not been made and informed taxpayer taxpayer filed the request for relief under shortly thereafter law sec_168 provides that for purposes of sec_168 if any property which is not tax-exempt_use_property is owned by a partnership which has both a tax-exempt_entity and a person who is not a tax-exempt_entity as partners and any allocation to the tax-exempt_entity of partnership items is not a qualified_allocation then an amount equal to such tax-exempt entity's proportionate share of such property shall be treated as tax-exempt_use_property sec_168 provides that for purposes of sec_168 any tax-exempt_controlled_entity shall be treated as a tax-exempt_entity sec_168 provides that for purposes of sec_168 a tax-exempt_controlled_entity may elect not to be treated as a tax-exempt_entity such an election is irrevocable and will bind all tax-exempt entities holding an interest in the tax-exempt_controlled_entity sec_301_9100-7t requires elections under sec_168 to be made by the due_date of the tax_return including extensions for the first taxable_year for which the election is to be effective under sec_301_9100-1 and sec_301_9100-3 and b the commissioner has discretion to grant a reasonable extension of time to make a regulatory election under all subtitles of the internal_revenue_code except subtitles e g h and i provided the taxpayer demonstrates to the satisfaction of the commissioner that the taxpayer acted reasonably and in good_faith and that granting relief will not prejudice the interests of the government under sec_301_9100-3 a taxpayer is deemed to have acted reasonably and in good_faith if the taxpayer reasonably relied on a qualified_tax professional including a tax professional employed by the taxpayer and the tax professional failed to make or advise the taxpayer to make the election based on all of the facts and information submitted and the representations made taxpayer relied on a qualified_tax professional to make the election under plr-110349-14 sec_168 that tax professional failed to make a timely election we therefore conclude that taxpayer has acted reasonably and in good_faith as described in sec_301_9100-3 and granting the requested relief will not prejudice the interests of the government taxpayer is granted an extension of time of days from the date of this letter_ruling to file an amended_return for tax_year making the election under sec_168 taxpayer must attach the aforementioned election and the information set forth in sec_301_9100-7t to the amended_return taxpayer also must attach a copy of this letter to the amended_return pursuant to sec_301_9100-7t a copy of the election statement also should be attached to the federal_income_tax returns of each of the tax- exempt shareholders of taxpayer caveats except as expressly provided herein no opinion is expressed or implied concerning the tax consequences of any aspect of any transaction or item discussed or referenced in this letter in particular we express no opinion as to whether taxpayer qualifies to make the election set forth in sec_168 this ruling is directed only to the taxpayer s requesting it sec_6110 provides that it may not be used or cited as precedent the ruling contained in this letter is based upon information and representations submitted by taxpayer and accompanied by a penalty of perjury statement executed by an appropriate party while this office has not verified any of the material submitted in support of the request for rulings it is subject_to verification on examination in accordance with the power_of_attorney on file with this office a copy of this letter is being sent to your authorized representatives sincerely amy pfalzgraf senior counsel branch office_of_chief_counsel income_tax accounting enclosure copy for sec_6110 purposes


internal_revenue_service department of the treasury index numbers 1400b washington dc number release date person to contact telephone number refer reply to cc dom p si 6-plr-108490-99 date date legend taxpayer location location district x y z a b c d e f g h plr-108490-99 i j k l dear this letter responds to a request for a private_letter_ruling filed by you on behalf of taxpayer dated date and subsequent submissions taxpayer requested a ruling that the operations of taxpayer meet for purposes of qualifying as a dc zone business as defined in sec_1400b the requirements under sec_1397b and sec_1397b as modified by sec_1400b of the internal_revenue_code taxpayer represents that the facts are as follows taxpayer is a c-corporation incorporated under laws of location y owns a percent of taxpayer with the remaining b percent of taxpayer owned by z y is a closely held c-corporation incorporated under the laws of location z is a c-corporation incorporated under the laws of location and is a wholly owned subsidiary of taxpayer z is a holding_company that owns the stock of various subsidiaries taxpayer utilizes the accrual_method of accounting and reports income on the basis of a fiscal_year accounting_period district has examination jurisdiction over the federal tax returns filed by taxpayer taxpayer’s g and operational facilities are located within the dc zone taxpayer operates in the h industry its only trade_or_business is the management and operation of x the management and operation of x are substantially performed at taxpayer’s g and operational facilities for example x day to day operations production of i and the transmission of x to affiliated j operators all occur at taxpayer’s operational facilities within the dc zone in addition the accounting marketing purchasing billing human resources and executive decision making are all performed at taxpayer’s g and operational facilities within the dc zone taxpayer has over c people working in the operations of taxpayer in the dc zone these include executive managerial professional technical and support positions substantially_all of the operations of taxpayer are performed within the dc zone the operations performed outside of the dc zone are concentrated in a few cities at sales offices whose function is to perform advertising sales and affiliate relationship management executives at taxpayer’s g located within the dc zone control and direct the advertising affiliate marketing and affiliate relationship plr-108490-99 management activities performed outside of the dc zone based on taxpayer’s representations in its submissions and at taxpayer’s conference of right the sources of taxpayer’s programs for x are acquired programming where taxpayer pays license fees to program producers to air their programs and original productions where taxpayer produces its own programs for x most of taxpayer’s programming is acquired from third parties although taxpayer or subsidiaries produce some original programming in general taxpayer obtains rights to air certain programming by entering licensing agreements with third party and related vendors in most cases taxpayer obtains the contractual right ie the license to air the programming for a specific time period after which the right to air the program reverts back to the owner of the program at the taxpayer’s conference of right and in its post-conference submission taxpayer described the editing of for purposes of compliance with fcc content guidelines and the arranging of the programming and the placing of advertisements that enable taxpayer to repackage the acquired programming and its original programming into program formats for transmission to the j operators taxpayer’s two primary sources of income are k revenue and l revenue from the operation of x x currently earns approximately d percent of its revenues from k and approximately e percent of its revenues from l x’s k revenue is derived primarily from sales of national spot advertising infomercial advertising and direct response advertising to companies taxpayer contracts with j operators to provide its programming service for a monthly per l under long-term affiliation agreements law and analysis sec_1400b of the code defines the dc zone as all census tracts located in the district of columbia for which the poverty rate is not less than percent as determined on the basis of the census sec_1400b of the code defines a dc zone business for purposes of the zero percent capital_gains_rate as any enterprise_zone_business as defined in sec_1397b with certain modifications sec_1397b of the code defines an enterprise_zone_business as meaning any qualified_business_entity with the modifications specified in sec_1400b sec_1397b defines a qualified_business_entity to mean with respect to any taxable_year any corporation or partnership if for such year certain requirements set forth in sec_1397b - are met sec_1397b requires every trade_or_business of the corporation or partnership to be the active_conduct of a qualified_business within an empowerment_zone that is the dc zone sec_1397b as modified by sec_1400b requires that at least percent of the total gross_income of such entity is derived from the active_conduct of such business plr-108490-99 sec_1397b of the code provides that except otherwise provided in sec_1397b the term qualified_business means any trade_or_business sec_1397b of the code which is titled treatment of business holding intangibles excludes from the definition of a qualified_business any trade_or_business consisting predominantly of the development or holding of intangibles for sale or license see h_r conf_rep no 103d cong 1st sess 1993_3_cb_393 sec_1397b of the code as modified by sec_1400b requires that every trade_or_business of taxpayer be the active_conduct of a qualified_business within the dc zone based on taxpayer’s representations taxpayer has only one trade_or_business and taxpayer’s operation and management of x taxpayer’s trade_or_business is from a location within the dc zone thus it would appear that taxpayer’s activities should constitute the active_conduct of a qualified_business within the dc zone sec_1397b as modified by sec_1400b requires that at least of the total gross_income of taxpayer is derived from the active_conduct of a qualified_business based on taxpayer’s representations the k revenue and l revenue earned through the operations of taxpayer which is approximately f percent of taxpayer’s gross_income is derived from the active_conduct of taxpayer’s trade_or_business within the dc zone thus it would appear that taxpayer should meet the requirement that at least of its total gross_income is derived from the active_conduct of a qualified_business however our view is that because of sec_1397b of the code taxpayer’s trade_or_business is excluded from the definition of a qualified_business sec_1397b excludes from the definition of a qualified_business any trade_or_business consisting predominantly of the development or holding of intangibles for sale or license taxpayer’s trade_or_business is h which extensively involves the use of intangibles taxpayer acquires intangibles ie licenses from third parties for their programming and its own self created programming and repackages the programming into program formats for transmission to j operators we view taxpayer’s program formats as being newly created intangibles and the development or holding of intangibles for sale or license language in sec_1397b as encompassing taxpayer’s repackaging activities and taxpayer’s holding of the program format taxpayer represents that it produces its own programs for ultimate use in x as a result of its repackaging activities by implication from the principles of sec_197 of the code which was created by the same legislative act the omnibus_budget_reconciliation_act_of_1993 which created sec_1397b we view taxpayer’s original programming as an intangible for purposes of sec_1397b taxpayer’s production of its own programs constitutes the development of an intangible we see no difference in concept between the program formats created by taxpayer for plr-108490-99 we note that the language of sec_1397b of the code does not preclude the presence of some development or holding of intangibles activity in a taxpayer’s trade_or_business in order to avoid the effect of sec_1397b it must be shown or demonstrated that a taxpayer’s trade_or_business does not consist predominantly of the development or holding of an intangible for sale or lease emphasis added taxpayer has failed to make such a demonstration we wish to make the following observations pertaining to the language of sec_1397b of the code the development or holding of intangibles for sale or license language in sec_1397b can include related performance of service activity by a taxpayer further throughout the case proceedings it was taxpayer’s position that sec_1397b only excludes intangible holding_companies from the definition of qualified_business that is dc zone business to some extent support for taxpayer’s position can be found in the title heading of sec_1397b treatment of business holding intangibles however the language of sec_1397b is much broader in scope and applies for example to companies developing intangibles for sale or license conclusion based solely on taxpayer’s representations and submissions and the relevant law and analysis set forth above we conclude that sec_1397b of the code excludes taxpayer’s trade_or_business from the definition of a qualified_business and thus prevents taxpayer from meeting the requirements under sec_1397b and b as modified by sec_1400b no opinion is expressed or implied as to the federal tax consequences of this transmission to j operators as a result of the repackaging of the acquired programs and taxpayer’s original programs and taxpayer’s original programming resulting from taxpayer’s production activity both products are intangibles resulting from taxpayer’s development activities for example insofar as taxpayer’s activity encompassing the development of intangibles for license is concerned we view the relationship between taxpayer and a j operator who is paying a monthly l to taxpayer under a long-term affiliation agreement as being in the nature of a non-exclusive license arrangement which imposes certain limitations on the j operator’s use of the program formats and does not permit the j operator to sell or otherwise exploit the program formats taxpayer describes intangible holding_companies as those companies that essentially hold only intangible assets produce generally passive_income eg royalties have few employees and contribute very little to the economy plr-108490-99 transaction under any provision not specifically addressed herein this ruling is directed only to the taxpayer who requested it sec_6110 of the code provides that it may not be used or cited as precedent temporary or final regulations pertaining to one or more of the issues addressed in this letter_ruling have not yet been adopted therefore this letter_ruling will be modified or revoked by the adoption of temporary or final regulations to the extent the regulations are inconsistent with any conclusion in the letter_ruling see section dollar_figure of revproc_99_1 1999_1_irb_6 however if the criteria in section dollar_figure of revproc_99_1 i r b pincite are satisfied a letter_ruling is not revoked or modified retroactively except in rare or unusual circumstances in accordance with section dollar_figure of revproc_99_1 i r b pincite taxpayer must attach a copy of this letter_ruling to any federal tax_return to which it is relevant we enclose a copy for that purpose in accordance with the power_of_attorney on file with this office a copy of this ruling is being sent to taxpayer sincerely yours kathleen reed senior technician reviewer branch office of assistant chief_counsel passthroughs and special industries enclosures copy of letter_ruling copy


t c memo united_states tax_court jeffrey d gregory petitioner v commissioner of internal revenue respondent docket no 1090-16l filed date r filed a notice_of_federal_tax_lien to secure the collection of an unpaid liability shown on p's federal_income_tax return for and a deficiency r determined for p does not dispute his liability for but challenges the validity of r's assessment of a deficiency for because of an alleged failure to mail him a notice_of_deficiency held a reprint of a notice_of_deficiency for p's taxable_year evidences the creation of the notice before assessment even though the reprint was prepared more than two years after the alleged mailing of the original notice and omitted or misstated information that would have appeared on any notice actually mailed held further a certified mail list sufficient to evidence the mailing of a notice_of_deficiency need not use an official u s postal service form held further a valid notice_of_deficiency need not comply with the definition of that term provided in the internal_revenue_manual and thus need not include all of the information listed in that definition held further the omission from a notice_of_deficiency of the last day to file a timely petition for redetermination does not invalidate the notice 116_tc_356 aff'd 293_f3d_740 5th cir followed held further a technical services territory manager has authority to sign and issue a notice_of_deficiency muncy v commissioner tcmemo_2017_83 aff'd 890_f3d_724 8th cir followed jeffrey d gregory pro_se sharyn m ortega for respondent memorandum opinion halpern judge this case is before us for review of a determination by the internal_revenue_service irs appeals_office appeals to sustain the filing of a notice_of_federal_tax_lien nftl concerning petitioner's unpaid federal_income_tax liabilities for his taxable years ended date and petitioner has conceded all issues other than the validity of respondent's assessment of a deficiency for residence background at the times petitioner filed the petition and the amended petition he resided in california tax returns payments and additional_assessment petitioner did not file a federal_income_tax return for his taxable_year ended date until date and did not begin paying the tax shown as due on that return until date he filed a timely return for his taxable_year and paid the liability shown on that return on date respondent assessed additional tax and an accuracy- related penalty for petitioner's taxable_year petitioner claims that he never received a notice_of_deficiency for that year the nftl and petitioner's request for a cdp hearing respondent mailed the nftl to petitioner on date one month later respondent received petitioner's request for a collection_due_process cdp hearing in his hearing request petitioner stated his belief that he was not liable for the assessed tax he also stated his desire to v erify whether or not the irs complied with all proper procedures as required_by_law and his interest in discussing collection alternatives in regard to any amounts he might actually owe cdp hearing and notice_of_determination upon being assigned to petitioner's case respondent's appeals officer alicia howard reviewed petitioner's file and transcripts the file apparently did not include a notice_of_deficiency for petitioner's taxable_year because ms howard requested a copy of the notice along with a certified mail list from respondent's examination_division on date valerie weber a second appeals officer assigned to petitioner's case received a reprint of a notice_of_deficiency from brian juster a group manager for respondent's small_business self-employed sb_se exam technical services group in a declaration of mr juster that the parties submitted at trial he explained that as part of his official duties he supervised employees in the use of an access database program which generates notices of deficiency mr juster described the document he provided to ms weber as a reprinted copy of a notice_of_deficiency issued to petitioner for tax_year after exchanging correspondence with petitioner ms weber spoke with him by telephone on date during that call according to ms weber petitioner conceded his liability for his taxable_year and asked for more time to gather information concerning his liability for ms weber allowed petitioner two more weeks in early date petitioner submitted documents for reconsideration of his deficiency and in a faxed letter to ms weber raised questions about the issuance of a notice_of_deficiency for that year ms weber forwarded petitioner's documentation to exam appeals which determined that the information did not warrant any changes in the assessed amounts ms weber then reiterated to petitioner a request for financial information to allow for consideration of collection alternatives but petitioner did not comply with that request in date respondent issued a notice_of_determination sustaining the nftl unpaid balance for when the court asked petitioner at trial to identify any issues regarding his taxable_year he responded at this point in time nothing petitioner agreed that respondent had not assessed any_tax for beyond the amount shown on his return and that he had not paid that amount in full respondent's counsel then interjected that petitioner's tax_liability had been fully paid a transcript of petitioner's account for his taxable_year jointly submitted by the parties however shows a balance due as of date of dollar_figure reprint of notice_of_deficiency at trial the parties jointly submitted a document they describe as a true and correct copy of an undated copy of a notice_of_deficiency comprised of four pages for tax_year acquired by appeals and provided to petitioner a fax cover sheet preceding that document indicates that the document submitted is the reprint of the notice that ms weber received from mr juster mr juster's declaration explains the difference between a reprint and a copy of a notice_of_deficiency as he explained reprinted notices of deficiency contain the same name and mailing address of the recipient and the same amounts of any deficiencies additions to tax or penalties for a given tax_year as were contained in the original notice he continued when a notice_of_deficiency is either printed or reprinted any date fields are not populated automatically applicable notice_of_deficiency dates are added by hand prior to the notice being mailed certified to a taxpayer a reprint will show the names of the commissioner and technical services territory manager as of the date of reprinting the individuals named in the reprint thus may not be those whose names appeared 1the cover sheet identifies the fax as being to valerie from bj and is dated date on any notice_of_deficiency previously prepared from the database and mailed to the taxpayer consistent with mr juster's explanation the reprinted notice_of_deficiency the parties submitted shows petitioner's name and address and the amounts of a deficiency in tax and an accuracy-related_penalty under sec_6662 a for his taxable_year although the printed form has captions for a date_of_issuance and the last day to file a petition with this court the spaces beside those captions are blank the printed form identifies john a koskinen as the commissioner but his name is crossed out by hand and the name sandra tucker is handwritten beside it the reprint bears the signature of susan g braunz beneath ms braunz's signature her name appears in print along with the title technical services territory manager the four pages of the reprint do not provide an explanation of how the deficiency was computed or the adjustments on which it was based the reprint provides no space for a certified mail number and no such number was added by hand 2all section references are to the internal_revenue_code_of_1986 as amended and all rule references are to the tax_court rules_of_practice and procedure unless otherwise indicated certified mail list the parties also jointly submitted a certified mail list dated date that lists statutory notices of deficiencies sent to taxpayers for specified taxable years the list bears the heading examination_division technical services a legend at the bottom of the list reads internal revenue service-- official use only petitioner's name and address appear on the list along with a reference to his taxable_year the list include sec_11 other entries which are blacked out on the copy the parties submitted an article number is listed for each entry including petitioner's above the legend at the bottom of the form printed captions appear for total number of pieces listed by sender total number of pieces received at post office and postmaster and date the number is written by hand beside each of the first two captions handwritten initials appear beside the first and third captions a circular mark is stamped next to the initials that appear beside the caption postmaster and date the stamped mark includes the date date the writing along the top of the circle is not entirely legible but appears to include yron rumford station the letters yron appear to be preceded by another that is obscured by the initials beside the postmaster and date caption inscribed along the bottom of the circle is oakland ca followed by what appears to be a zip code i introduction discussion sec_6320 and sec_6330 provide a taxpayer the right to notice and the opportunity for an appeals hearing before the commissioner can collect unpaid taxes by means of a lien or levy against the taxpayer's property if a taxpayer requests a cdp hearing the appeals officer conducting the hearing must verify that the requirements of any applicable law or administrative procedure have been met sec_6320 sec_6330 the taxpayer may raise at the hearing any relevant issue relating to the unpaid tax or the collection action including appropriate spousal defenses challenges to the appropriateness of collection actions and offers of collection alternatives see sec_6330 as a general_rule the commissioner cannot assess a deficiency without first mailing a notice_of_deficiency to the taxpayer and allowing him a specified period to file with this court a petition for redetermination sec_6213 if a taxpayer in a cdp case did not receive a statutory_notice_of_deficiency for any period for which the commissioner is attempting to collect a deficiency or did not otherwise have an opportunity to dispute the liability the commissioner seeks to collect the taxpayer can raise in his cdp hearing challenges to the existence or amount of that liability see sec_6330 sec_6330 allows a taxpayer to petition this court for review of a determination made under sec_6320 or sec_6330 and grants us jurisdiction with respect to the matter upon the timely filing of a petition ii petitioner's concessions although in the amended petition petitioner assigns error to what he characterizes as the irs' claim that he had taxable_income and tax_liabilities for and he agreed at trial that he had no issues to raise in regard to in his posttrial brief petitioner attributes the absence of any issue in regard to to the parties' agreement that the taxes for have been fully paid in support of that claim however he cites the account transcript that shows a balance due respondent acknowledged in his brief that his counsel misspoke when she stated that the balance for was full y paid under the circumstances we agree with respondent that p etitioner was not prejudiced by the misstatement of the balance because petitioner raised in his brief no issues in regard to his taxable_year even though he had reason to know that a liability remained outstanding we will treat him as having conceded any issues for that year see remuzzi v commissioner t c memo t c m p-h para big_number pincite treating as conceded an issue not raised by taxpayers in briefs aff'd on other grounds 867_f2d_609 4th cir see also rule e requiring briefs to discuss the points of law involved in the case and disputed questions of fact similarly although petitioner attempted in his cdp hearing to challenge his underlying tax_liability for and stated in his petition a belief that he does not owe the deficiency respondent determined he made no arguments on brief that the deficiency is incorrect in amount petitioner's only challenge to the deficiency respondent determined for is that its assessment was improper because he claims respondent did not mail to him a valid notice_of_deficiency for that year iii validity of assessment of deficiency petitioner's claims regarding the validity of respondent's assessment of the deficiency he determined in petitioner's federal_income_tax fall into four categories first petitioner asserts that respondent did not create a notice_of_deficiency second he contends that any notice created was not mailed third he claims that the notice was invalid because it lacked essential content and finally he asserts that ms braunz lacked the authority to issue a notice_of_deficiency we address each group of arguments in turn below and conclude that none provides a basis for determining that respondent's assessment of a deficiency for petitioner's taxable_year was invalid a existence of notice respondent asserts that he issued petitioner a notice_of_deficiency for petitioner's taxable_year but admits that t here was no copy of the original notice_of_deficiency in the administrative file petitioner asks how can we tell if the nod notice_of_deficiency was ever printed and mailed out when there is no copy of the actual nod that was supposedly printed out and then mailed to petitioner he also contends juster declaration is admission of respondent that the nod which is part of the record of this case was a never printed out by respondent b to be mailed out to petitioner c to have a copy of it made and save in petitioner's file respondent responds that t he notice proffered to demonstrate its existence does not have to be an original but can be a copy or reprint in support of his claim respondent cites rule e of the federal rules of evidence that rule is not an operative rule it merely defines the term duplicate to mean a counterpart produced by a mechanical photographic chemical electronic or other equivalent process or technique that accurately reproduces the original that definition supplements the operative provision found in fed r evid which generally allows the admission of a duplicate to the same extent as the original as respondent observes the u s court_of_appeals for the tenth circuit cited fed r evid e in rejecting a taxpayer's complaint that the irs's proffered copies of the notices of deficiency are reprints from its computer database not photocopies 668_fedappx_838 n 10th cir aff'g tcmemo_2015_29 the court observed that the taxpayer had cite d no authority indicating that a reprint cannot serve as adequate evidence of the existence of a notice_of_deficiency and proceeded to invoke fed r evid e id we are not convinced that the reprint the parties submitted in this case qualifies as a duplicate within the meaning of fed r evid e because the reprint omits dates that would have appeared on any notice_of_deficiency actually sent to petitioner and apparently names individuals other than those whose names would have appeared on any original the reprint is not an accurate reproduction of any notice_of_deficiency sent to petitioner moreover portwine is distinguishable from the case before us the reprint in that case bore a date that matched the date of a certified mail list the commissioner submitted portwine v commissioner tcmemo_2015_29 at it also included the certified mail number shown on the mailing list for the item purportedly mailed to the taxpayer id portwine however is not the only case in which we accepted reprints of a notice_of_deficiency as evidence of a valid assessment in alamo v commissioner tcmemo_2017_215 we relied on two reprints of a notice_of_deficiency for the year in issue along with other evidence to conclude that the commissioner had not only created a notice_of_deficiency but also had mailed it to the taxpayer but alamo is also distinguishable from the present case the reprints in alamo like that in portwine bore dates that matched the dates of certified mail lists the commissioner submitted our conclusion in alamo regarding the existence and mailing of the notice was further supported by a notation in the commissioner's records that the notice was returned as unclaimed or refused because the reprints in portwine and alamo were apparently prepared contemporaneously with the alleged mailings they provided stronger evidence that notices of deficiency were actually printed out and mailed to the taxpayers nonetheless those factors that distinguish the present case from portwine and alamo do not require a different result even if the reprint the parties submitted in the present case does not qualify as a duplicate we see no reason it cannot serve as evidence that respondent prepared a notice_of_deficiency for petitioner's taxable_year we infer from the inclusion in respondent's database of the information shown on the reprint that respondent created a notice_of_deficiency for petitioner's taxable_year in accordance with his customary practice we draw that inference not from the document the parties submitted but instead from the information included in respondent's database the reprint simply evidences information that had been stored in the database before the reprint's creation thus we conclude that the reprint is sufficient to support appeals officer weber's determination regarding the existence of a notice of respondent's determination_of_a_deficiency in petitioner's federal_income_tax 3we also infer on the basis of mr juster's description of his supervisory duties that the access database program that produced the reprint is customarily used to generate notices of deficiency mailed to taxpayers 4as petitioner observes mr juster's declaration makes it clear that the reprinted notice_of_deficiency included in the record was not itself mailed to petitioner but we see nothing in mr juster's declaration that could be read as an admission that no notice_of_deficiency in any form was mailed to petitioner for his taxable_year in fact mr juster's description of the reprint as a copy of a notice_of_deficiency issued to petitioner for tax_year indicates his belief that a notice was prepared and mailed using the information stored in the access database b mailing of notice of course that a notice_of_deficiency was created does not establish that it was mailed see garrett v commissioner tcmemo_2016_179 at we thus now turn to petitioner's questions regarding the mailing of the notice absence from reprint of certified mail number petitioner complains that the reprint of the notice_of_deficiency does not bear a certified mail number he asks without a certified mail number listed on the nod how can we know that the nod was mailed by respondent to petitioner how could we track that item at the post office's website to see if it was mailed out by respondent to petitioner respondent's certified mail list answers petitioner's first question it associates a certified mail number5 with the notice respondent says he mailed to petitioner and thus provides evidence that the notice was not only created but also mailed see id at by the time of petitioner's cdp hearing in date however that certified mail number could not have been used to track a notice_of_deficiency mailed on date because the postal service stores tracking information on items sent by certified mail for no more than two years 5we assume that the article numbers appearing on respondent's certified mail list are the certified mail numbers assigned to the listed notices of deficiency u s postal service usps tracking--the basics https usps force com faq s article usps-tracking-the-basics last visited date absence from reprint of date_of_issuance petitioner argues that w ithout a date_of_issuance on the nod we cannot tell if the nod was ever mailed out on any date at all the absence of a date_of_issuance from the reprint of the notice_of_deficiency however is not surprising as mr juster explained in accordance with respondent's customary procedures a notice of deficiency's date_of_issuance is added by hand after the notice is printed moreover as noted above respondent's certified mail list evidences the mailing of the notice whose existence we have accepted on the basis of the information stored in respondent's database and shown on the reprint form of mailing list petitioner complains that respondent used his own form of a certified mail list the certified mailing is not a postal form_3877 or authorized equivalent or state that it is a postal form at all but a home-made form of 'examination division technical services' that on top left of the page calls itself 'certified mail list ' he asserts respondent must follow the applicable postal regulations just like taxpayers and use the form_3877 or its equivalent authorized by the post office the taxpayer in garrett v commissioner at made the same argument and as in that case we can quickly dispose_of it as we said there the commissioner is not required to produce a usps form_3877 if he produces equivalent evidence of proper mailing id petitioner has not identified any information missing from respondent's certified mail list that would be included on a postal service form_3877 we thus conclude that respondent's certified mail list is equivalent to a postal service form_3877 and we accept that list as evidence that respondent mailed to petitioner on date a notice_of_deficiency for his taxable_year validity of postmark petitioner challenges the validity of the postmark that appears on respondent's certified mail list as he interprets that mark in addition to some illegible language it reads oakland ca and from runford station he reasons that no post office postmark would state 'from' on it he also claims that the mark makes no reference to a post office or the usps in fact byron rumford station is the name of a post office in oakland california with that in mind we read as yron the letters that petitioner interprets as from we assume that the obscured letter that precedes those four letters is a b we thus reject petitioner's claim that the postmark makes no reference to a post office and we accept its validity c content of notice in general petitioner observes that the notice reprint is only pages long he adds t here is no explanation reasons facts law or calculations listed on the nod to give us a hint as to what respondent found to be a problem issue concern objection adjustments to his tax_return he observes that the reprint does not include all of the items required by pt of the internal_revenue_manual irm that part of the manual as in effect in date defined the term notice_of_deficiency as a legal determination that consists of four items a letter explaining the purpose of the notice the amount of the deficiency and the taxpayer's options a waiver to allow the taxpayer to agree to the additional tax_liability a statement showing how the deficiency was 6u s post office hours byron rumford post office https www uspostofficehours org location ca_1301_byron_rumford_ post_office last visited date computed and a n explanation of the adjustments irm pt date because the reprint does not include all of those items petitioner concludes t he nod and the assessment for are invalid due to the nod having no substance whatsoever behind the tax and penalty numbers listed on its front page of the nod petitioner's complaints about the content of the reprint do not provide reason to question the validity of the assessment respondent made on the basis of that notice to begin with although we have accepted the reprint the parties submitted as evidence of the notice's existence we need not view it as delimiting the extent of the content of any notice actually mailed to petitioner the document actually mailed may have included additional content not reflected in the reprint moreover even if the actual notice had no content beyond that of the reprint the notice would still have been sufficient to support respondent's assessment a notice_of_deficiency need not take any particular form but is adequate as long as it notifies the taxpayer of the commissioner's intent to assess a deficiency and gives him the opportunity to petition this court for 7petitioner cites a revised version of internal_revenue_manual pt adopted on date the description of the four elements of a notice_of_deficiency stated in the revised definition of that term is substantially identical to that in the earlier version redetermination as the court_of_appeals for the second circuit explained in 88_f2d_650 2d cir the notice_of_deficiency is only to advise the person who is to pay the deficiency that the commissioner means to assess him anything that does this unequivocally is good enough more recently this court observed that no particular form is required for a notice_of_deficiency as long as it is a formal communication informing the taxpayer that a deficiency has been determined and stating either the taxable_period involved or giving sufficient information that the taxpayer reasonably could not be deceived as to the taxable_period smith v commissioner tcmemo_1979_16 t c m p-h para big_number pincite it is immaterial that the irm defines the term notice_of_deficiency to consist of elements beyond those required by caselaw the irm lacks the force of law and does not create rights for taxpayers weiss v commissioner 147_tc_179 aff'd wl d c cir date walker v commissioner tcmemo_2018_22 at we therefore reject petitioner's argument that respondent's assessment was invalid because the reprint of the notice_of_deficiency did not include sufficient information absence from reprint of last day to file timely petition as an alternative ground for his claim that respondent did not mail him a valid notice_of_deficiency petitioner observes that the reprinted notice_of_deficiency does not state the last day to file a timely petition for redetermination with this court section a of the internal_revenue_service restructuring and reform act of rra requires the secretary or_his_delegate to include on any notice_of_deficiency issued under sec_6212 the last day on which the taxpayer can file a petition with this court rra pub_l_no sec a stat pincite any petition filed on or before the specified date is treated as timely filed regardless of whether it is filed within days after mailing of the notice sec_6213 last sentence again the absence of information from the reprint does not establish the omission of that same information from any notice_of_deficiency respondent mailed to petitioner as mr juster explained the date_of_issuance and last day to file a timely petition are added to a notice_of_deficiency by hand after the notice is printed and before it is mailed to the taxpayer moreover the omission from a notice_of_deficiency mailed to a taxpayer of the last day on which to file a timely petition in response to the notice does not automatically invalidate it see 116_tc_356 aff'd 293_f3d_740 5th cir accord 324_f3d_1110 9th cir congress enacted section of rra to ensure that taxpayers would not be foreclosed from litigating their deficiencies on a prepayment basis merely because of a miscalculation of the filing period under sec_6213 rochelle v commissioner t c pincite because petitioner claims not to have received a notice_of_deficiency for his taxable_year he cannot also claim that his failure_to_file a petition for redetermination of the deficiency resulted from a miscalculation of the filing period if petitioner did not receive any notice mailed by respondent he cannot have been prejudiced by the omission from that notice of the last date to file a timely petition for redetermination we therefore reject petitioner's argument that the absence from the reprint of the last day to file a timely petition with this court establishes that respondent did not mail to him a valid notice_of_deficiency for his taxable_year d authority of signer finally as one last challenge to the validity of respondent's notice_of_deficiency petitioner argues that to his best knowledge and research ms braunz is not a delegate of the commissioner with the authority to issue nods moreover petitioner claims that our opinion in muncy v commissioner tcmemo_2017_83 aff'd 890_f3d_724 8th cir provides proof that ms braunz did not have the delegation of authority to issue the nod that was issued to him for year muncy actually establishes just the opposite--that technical services territory managers such as ms braunz do have authority to issue notices of deficiency and have since at least date as we explained in muncy v commissioner at the technical services territory manager position is part of the small_business_self-employed_division of the irs we accepted delegation_order irm pt date as documentation that sb_se technical services territory managers have authority to issue notices of deficiency in his appeal of our decision to the court_of_appeals for the eighth circuit the taxpayer in muncy v commissioner f 3d pincite relied on a literal reading of delegation_order to claim that the order did not delegate to sb_se technical services territory managers authority to issue notices of deficiency the appellate court agreed that delegation_order did not directly list sb_se technical services territory managers id pincite but as the court explained delegation_order did list two technical services employees who were subject_to the supervision of technical services territory managers and because the irm provides for the direct delegation to the lowest level expected to take final action irm pt date those in supervisory positions over the specific delegatees generally have the same authority therefore the court_of_appeals for the eighth circuit concluded that the sb_se technical services territory manager who signed the notice_of_deficiency at issue in muncy v commissioner f 3d pincite had authority to sign and send the notice following muncy we reject petitioner's argument that ms braunz lacked the authority to issue him a notice_of_deficiency for his taxable_year iv conclusion as noted at the outset petitioner has conceded all issues other than the validity of respondent's assessment of a deficiency in his federal_income_tax having rejected each of his challenges to the validity of that assessment we conclude that appeals properly sustained the nftl decision will be entered for respondent