Notice Of Deficiency Not Signed Is Invalid
Notice Of Deficiency Not Signed Is Invalid Because It Was Not Signed By The Secretary Of The Treasury Or By Someone With Delegated Authority
The Law: Section 6212(a) provides the authority for the Secretary to send notices of deficiency to taxpayers. Section 7701(a)(11)(B) defines “Secretary” to include the Secretary of the Treasury or his delegate.Section 7701(a)(12)(A)(i) defines the term A delegate,” as used with respect to the Secretary of the Treasury, to mean any officer, employee, or agency of the Treasury Department duly authorized by the Secretary directly, or indirectly by redelegation of authority, to perform a certain function. There is no statutory requirement that the notice of deficiency be signed.
Relevant Case Law:
Tavano v. Commissioner, 986 F.2d 1389 (11th Cir. 1993), aff’d, 986 F.2d 1389 (11th Cir. 1993) – the court rejected petitioner’s argument that the notice of deficiency was invalid because it was unsigned.Green v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2007-262, 94 T.C.M. (CCH) 249 (2007) – in this collection due process case petitioner claimed that he received invalid notices of deficiency because they were signed by the Field Director, Compliance Services, Brookhaven Service Center instead of the Secretary. The court held that the Field Director was a proper delegate of the Secretary and “it is well settled that the Secretary or his delegates may issue notices of deficiency.” Additionally the court emphasized that “there is no requirement that a notice of deficiency besigned.”Reynolds v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-192, 92 T.C.M. (CCH) 260 (2006) – in this collection due process case petitioner claimed that he received invalid notices of deficiency because they were signed by the compliance center director of the Ogden Service Center instead of the Secretary. According to the court, it is well established that the Secretary or his delegates may issue notices of deficiency.Ball v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-141, 92 T.C.M. (CCH) 7 (2006) – in this collection due process case, petitioners argued that they received no valid notice of deficiency because the notice that they received was not signed by the Secretary of the Treasury. The court rejected this argument as frivolous, and further noted that this argument has been “universally rejected” by the Tax Court and other courts.Wheeler v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-109, 91 T.C.M. (CCH) 1194 (2006), aff’d, 528 F.3d 773 (10th Cir. 2008) – the court held that a valid notice of deficiency need not be signed at all.Michael v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-26, 85 T.C.M. (CCH) 803 (2003) – the petitioner contested the validity of a notice of deficiency signed by a service center director. The court rejected this argument as frivolous.Nestor v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 162 (2002) – in this collection due process case, the Tax Court held that the Secretary’s authority to issue statutory notices of deficiency has been delegated to district directors and service center directors.