Opinion ID: 652754
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Jurisdiction of Tax Court

Text: 5 On appeal, Dorsch argues that the Tax Court lacked jurisdiction over his case because the notices of deficiency were invalid. He contends that the deficiency notices were invalid because the substitute tax returns upon which they were based were not prepared according to IRS regulations. He also maintains that the allegedly premature issuance of the deficiency notices deprived him of the opportunity to pursue administrative review. 6 It is the determination of a deficiency, rather than the filing of substitute returns that is a predicate to Tax Court jurisdiction. Hannan v. Commissioner, 52 T.C. 787, 791 (1969). The filing of a substitute tax return is not a mandatory prerequisite to issuing a statutory notice of deficiency. United States v. Verkuilen, 690 F.2d 648, 657 (7th Cir.1982); Roat v. Commissioner, 847 F.2d 1379, 1381 (9th Cir.1988). Thus, the jurisdiction of the Tax Court does not hinge on whether substitute returns were prepared in accordance with IRS regulations. Moreover, Dorsch concedes that the substitute returns were merely the basis for opening a file, and that there is no indication that the deficiency notices were premised on the substitute returns. Appellant's Br. 11. 7 Neither is the Commissioner required to provide a taxpayer an opportunity for administrative review before issuing a deficiency notice. See Rosenberg v. Commissioner, 450 F.2d 529, 531-33 (10th Cir.1971) (distinguishing criminal prosecutions from deficiency proceedings). In any event, Dorsch offered no evidence that he was precluded from seeking administrative review. Rather, after receiving the notice of deficiency on September 20, 1990, he waited until nearly the end of the 90-day limit to file a petition for review with the Tax Court. The record contains no evidence supporting the allegation that he attempted to seek administrative review, but was precluded.