Frank Tavano v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 986 F.2d 1389 (11th Cir. 1993). · Go Syfert
Search
Frank Tavano v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 986 F.2d 1389 (11th Cir. 1993). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“the mailing of a valid notice of deficiency is generally a prerequisite to formal assessment and collection of the deficiency by the irs.”
27 citation events (20 in the last 25 years) across 9 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Peter L. Clinco, C. M. Barone-Clinco, Successor in Interest, and C. M. Barone-Clinco (tax, 2026-02-09)
Treatment trajectory · 1994 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1994 2010 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 14 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Peter L. Clinco, C. M. Barone-Clinco, Successor in Interest, and C. M. Barone-Clinco
Tax Ct. · 2026 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
the code does not expressly require a notice of deficiency to be signed
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) United States v. GRIGGERS
M.D. Ga. · 2024 · signal: see also · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
the mailing of a valid notice of deficiency is generally a prerequisite to formal assessment and collection of the deficiency by the irs.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Mobley v. U.S. Government
S.D. Ga. · 2021 · confidence medium
Plaintiffs offer nothing to rebut that presumption, see id., they merely complain that they did not receive deficiency notices. of Deficiency to the taxpayer to give the taxpayer a chance to challenge the deficiency, Tavano v. C.I.R., 986 F.2d 1389, 1390 (11th Cir. 1993); • After any such challenge is resolved (or the time to challenge the deficiency has run), see id. (referencing 26 U.S.C. § 6213 (a)), the agency must validly assess the tax, 26 U.S.C. § 6203 ; • Then, having assessed the tax, the IRS must “provide a ‘Notice and Demand for payment’ of the assessed tax as required b…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Trevitt
M.D. Ga. · 2016 · confidence medium
Comm'r v. Shapiro, 424 U.S. 614, 618 , 96 S.Ct. 1062 , 47 L.Ed.2d 278 (1976); Tavano v. Comm'r, 986 F.2d 1389, 1390 (11th Cir.1993). . 26 U.S.C. § 6213 . .See Shapiro, 424 U.S. at 616-17 , 96 S.Ct. 1062 ; Bourekis v. Comm'r, 110 T.C. 20, 27 (1998); see also Singleton v. United States, 128 F.3d 833, 839 (4th Cir.1997) (“The requirement that a notice of deficiency be issued to the taxpayer is not a mere technicality.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Marcinek v. Commissioner
3rd Cir. · 2012 · confidence medium
The Internal Revenue Code “does not expressly require a notice of deficiency to be signed,” Tavano v. Comm’r, 986 F.2d 1389, 1390 (11th Cir. 1993) (per curiam); therefore, “no signature is required to render a deficiency notice valid,” Selgas v. Comm’r, 475 F.3d 697, 700 (5th Cir.2007).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Luker v. Heartland Community Bank (In Re Frankum)
Bankr. E.D. Ark. · 2011 · confidence medium
See also In re Scanlon, 239 F.3d 1195, 1198 (11th Cir.2001); In re Montgomery, 986 F.2d 1389, 1395 (6th Cir.1993); In re Kemp Fisheries, Inc., 16 F.3d 313, 316 (9th Cir.1994).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Navolio Ex Rel. Ivan D. Saxe Living Trust
11th Cir. · 2009 · confidence medium
See 26 U.S.C. § 6213 (a); Tavano v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 986 F.2d 1389, 1390 (11th Cir.1993).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Judith A. Barnes, f.k.a. Judith Genrich v. Commissioner
Tax Ct. · 2008 · confidence medium
Memo. 2004-13 ; Carlson v. United States, 126 F.3d 915, 922 (7th Cir. 1997); Tavano v. Commissioner, 986 F.2d 1389, 1390 (11th Cir. 1993), affg.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Barnes
unknown court · Mic · confidence medium
Memo. 2004-13 ; Carlson v. United States, 126 F.3d 915, 922 (7th Cir. 1997); Tavano v. Commissioner, 986 F.2d 1389, 1390 (11th Cir. 1993), affg.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Brian E. Harriss
Tax Ct. · 2021 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Similarly, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit rejected a taxpayer’s argument that a notice of deficiency was invalid because the IRS employee who signed it lacked authority to do so; the Court of Appeals stated: “The existence of a signature or the identity of any IRS official who provides one, is superfluous.” Selgas v. Commissioner, 475 F.3d 697, 699-700 (5th Cir. 2007) (emphasis added); see also Tavano v. Commissioner, 986 F.2d 1389, 1390 (11th Cir. 1993) (holding that an unsigned notice of deficiency received by the taxpayer was valid because it “adequately advised him that…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Brian E. Harriss
Tax Ct. · 2021 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Similarly, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit rejected a taxpayer’s argument that a notice of deficiency was invalid because the IRS employee who signed it lacked authority to do so; the Court of Appeals stated: “The existence of a signature or the identity of any IRS official who provides one, is superfluous.” Selgas v. Commissioner, 475 F.3d 697, 699-700 (5th Cir. 2007) (emphasis added); see also Tavano v. Commissioner, 986 F.2d 1389, 1390 (11th Cir. 1993) (holding that an unsigned notice of deficiency received by the taxpayer was valid because it “adequately advised him that…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Buser v. United States
Fed. Cl. · 2009 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Tavano v. Comm’r, 986 F.2d 1389, 1389 (11th Cir.1993) (holding that a notice of tax deficiency sent to a taxpayer by the IRS need not be signed in order to be valid). 15 Furthermore, section 6331(a) explicitly applies to “any person liable to pay any tax,” 26 U.S.C. § 6331 (a), despite plaintiffs claims to the contrary, see Compl.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Selgas v. Commissioner (2×)
5th Cir. · 2007 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See Smith v. United States, 478 F.2d 398, 400 (5th Cir.1973); see also Tavano v. Comm’r, 986 F.2d 1389, 1390 (11th Cir.1993). 3 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Vincent C. Wiley v. United States of America Citizens Federal Mortgage Corporation State of Ohio Franklin County Treasurer and Houng Thai
6th Cir. · 1994 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Under the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, the IRS must mail a notice of deficiency by certified or registered mail before it can make an assessment for delinquent taxes, which in turn is a prerequisite to seizing and selling the taxpayer’s property. 26 U.S.C. §§ 6212 (a), 6213(a), 6303(a), and 6331; see also Tavano v. Commissioner, 986 F.2d 1389, 1390 (11th Cir.1993) (per curiam); Robinson v. United States, 920 F.2d 1157, 1158 (3d Cir.1990).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Frank TAVANO, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee
91-4078.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Mar 29, 1993.
986 F.2d 1389
Gary R. Allen, Tax Div., Dept. of Justice, Scott P. Towers, Brian C. Griffin, Charles E. Brookhart, Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee.
Kravitch, Anderson, Hill.
Cited by 24 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

In Brafman v. United States, 384 F.2d 863 (5th Cir.1967), our predecessor circuit wrote in dictum that a notice of tax deficiency sent to a taxpayer by the Internal Revenue Service need not be signed in order to be valid. Id. at 865 n. 4 (citing Commissioner v. Oswego Falls Corp., 71 F.2d 673, 677 (2d Cir.1934), and 9 Jacob Mertens, Jr., Federal Income Taxation § 49.186 (1965)). [1] We now expressly so hold. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the tax court holding appellant Tavano liable for tax deficiencies and additions. [2]

[*1390] I.

On April 5, 1988, Tavano received from the Commissioner of Internal Revenue a statutory notice of deficiency notifying him of taxes and additions to taxes owed for tax years 1985 and 1986. The notice did not contain the signature, stamp, or seal of the Commissioner or of a representative of the Commissioner. Tavano properly filed a petition in the tax court seeking redetermination of his tax liability. The tax court upheld the Commissioner’s determinations.

II.

The Internal Revenue Code authorizes the Commissioner to notify a taxpayer by certified or registered mail of a deficiency in income tax owed. 26 U.S.C. § 6212(a) (1988). The mailing of a valid notice of deficiency is generally a prerequisite to formal assessment and collection of the deficiency by the IRS. Id. § 6213(a); see, e.g., H & H Beverage Distributors v. Dep’t of Revenue, 850 F.2d 165, 168 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 994, 109 S.Ct. 560, 102 L.Ed.2d 586 (1988); United States v. Zolla, 724 F.2d 808, 810 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 105 S.Ct. 116, 83 L.Ed.2d 59 (1984); Meyer v. Commissioner, 97 T.C. 555, 560 (1991). Tavano challenges the validity of the notice he received on the ground that it was unsigned.

The Code does not expressly require a notice of deficiency to be signed. Urban v. Commissioner, 964 F.2d 888, 889 (9th Cir.1992); Oswego Falls Corp., 71 F.2d at 677, cited in Brafman, 384 F.2d at 865 n. 4. Indeed, it prescribes no form at all for deficiency notices. Benzvi v. Commissioner, 787 F.2d 1541, 1542 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 883, 107 S.Ct. 273, 93 L.Ed.2d 250 (1986). The Internal Revenue Manual does specify the manner in which delegates of the Commissioner who are authorized to issue notices of deficiency should sign notices. I.R.M. § 4(13)14.3(2); Urban, 964 F.2d at 889 n. 2. It does not, however, purport to condition the validity of a deficiency notice on a proper signature. See Urban, 964 F.2d at 890; see also United States v. Horne, 714 F.2d 206, 207 (1st Cir.1983) (holding that the manual’s provisions are not mandatory); United States v. Will, 671 F.2d 963, 967 (6th Cir. 1982) (same); Smith v. United States, 478 F.2d 398, 400 (5th Cir.1973) (same as to the manual’s predecessor).

Judge Learned Hand explained that “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.” Olsen v. Helvering, 88 F.2d 650, 651 (2d Cir.1937), quoted in Benzvi, 787 F.2d at 1542. The notice Tavano received adequately advised him that the Commissioner intended to assess him, notwithstanding that the notice was unsigned. Thus, the tax court properly proceeded to evaluate the correctness of the Commissioner’s determinations.

The judgment of the tax court is AFFIRMED.

1

. In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir.1981) (en banc), the Eleventh Circuit adopted as circuit precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit rendered prior to October 1, 1981.

2

. In addition to the fact that his notice of deficiency was unsigned, Tavano argues six other grounds for reversal, all of which are meritless. Tavano claims that the tax court erred by: (1) denying his motion for a protective order; (2) not finding the deficiency notice arbitrary, excessive, or without factual foundation; (3) denying his motions to strike the testimony of certain witnesses and for rehearing; (4) admitting evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 12 of the Florida Constitution; (5) disallowing certain deductions and interfering with his rights under article I, section 23 of the Florida Constitution; and (6) upholding the Commissioner’s additions to tax for negligent disregard of the tax laws and substantial understatement of income tax.