Promptly upon receipt of an unanswered case, the Field attorney should review the petition and the statutory notice. Additional information may be needed to file a motion or answer.

The statutory notice attached to the petition should be cross-checked against the statutory notice shown in the administrative file to insure that the petitioner has attached a correct and a complete copy of the statutory notice. If not, it will be necessary to make a denial in the answer and allege that a correct and complete copy of the statutory notice is attached to the answer.

The statutory notice and petition must be examined to determine that the party to whom the statutory notice was sent is the same as the petitioner. If there is a variance, it will be necessary to determine whether the petitioner is legally the party entitled to file a petition. If not, a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction may be necessary. Similarly, it will be necessary to determine that the years petitioned are years that are contained in a statutory notice. If not, a jurisdictional motion may be required.

The notice of deficiency should also be reviewed to ensure that there are no jurisdictional defects. If the notice is not valid as a result of some defect, immediate consideration should be given to issuing a valid statutory notice, assuming the statute of limitations has not expired. Factors to consider in reviewing the validity of a statutory notice include:

If the petition is executed other than by the petitioner and the circumstances suggest a question as to the authority of the representative to act on behalf of the petitioner, further information should be solicited to determine the authority to act for the petitioner. One such circumstance would be a representative who has been identified as either not admitted to practice before the Tax Court or whose representation has not been recognized by the court.

Section 7602(e) prohibits the service from using financial status or economic reality techniques to determine the existence of a petitioner's unreported income unless the Service has a"reasonable indication that there is a likelihood of unreported income." Section 7602(e) concerns the use of indirect methods to reconstruct the taxpayer's income through circumstantial evidence. The statutory notice should be reviewed to determine whether the Service used an indirect method. If an indirect method was used, the Field attorney must review the administrative file to ascertain whether the Service had a reasonable indication that the petitioner was underreporting his or her income prior to utilizing the financial status or economic reality audit techniques. If there is no evidence in the administrative file to show the Service had such an indication, serious consideration should be given to conceding the case. The Field attorney should contact the revenue agent to determine if the agent had any evidence of unreported income not contained in the administrative file before conceding the case, and should consider seeking legal advice to confirm the proposed position in the case.

The statutory notice should also be reviewed to verify that the notice states the last day on which the taxpayer may file a petition with the Tax Court. If the petition is filed on or before the date specified on the statutory notice, the petition will be treated as timely even though it would be untimely under the normal 90 or 150 day rule. The notice of deficiency should also advise taxpayers of the right to contact the local Taxpayer Advocate and provide the location and telephone number of that office, although failure to do so does not render the notice invalid.

The Field attorney should verify that the statutory notice of deficiency was issued by the Service within three years after the due date for filing the tax return for each year raised in the Tax Court petition. If the statutory notice was issued more than three years after the due date, the Field attorney should review the administrative file to see if the statute of limitations for assessment was extended or whether a statute of limitations other that the usual three-year statute applies. See CCDM 35.2.2.4.3. If the statutory notice was issued late as to any particular year and no exception applies to keep the statute open, the Field attorney should concede that year in the answer, even if the petition does not plead a statute of limitations defense. See CCDM 35.2.1.1(3). It is the longstanding policy of the Office of Chief Counsel to notify the taxpayer or representative of the existence of an expired statute of limitations even if it has not been assigned as error in the petition (and thus deemed conceded under the court's rules), notwithstanding the lack of any duty under the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct to make such a disclosure.

In worker classification cases under section 7436, a notice of determination of worker classification is used, rather than a notice of deficiency. The Service sends the notice of determination of worker classification by certified or registered mail. The notice of determination of worker classification advises taxpayers of the opportunity to seek Tax Court review and provides information on how to do so. The notice of determination of worker classification should include a schedule identifying the workers the Service has determined should be classified as employees. The notice of determination of worker classification should also show each kind of tax with its proposed employment tax adjustment by taxable period.

The above considerations also apply to other types of determination letters issued by the Service, including adverse determination letters in interest abatement, spousal relief, administrative costs, collection due process, and transferee liability cases. Careful research of the statutory requirements for each type of determination letter should be conducted to determine that the Service has satisfied all jurisdictional requirements for the respective cases. See also CCDM 35.2.1.1.15, Initial Review of Certain Declaratory Judgment Cases and Section 7436 Cases, for other notices of determination issued by the Service that can be petitioned to the Tax Court.

A petition should be examined immediately to determine whether each of the years in the notice of deficiency have been petitioned. If a year has not been petitioned, Appeals should immediately be requested to initiate assessment of the tax for that year because the statute of limitations continues to run as to any year for which no Tax Court petition is filed. The Service may have less than 60 days remaining on the statute of limitations on assessment by the time a petition has been received by the Field Counsel office, so prompt action is critical. As an administrative rule, the assessment of the year(s) not petitioned should be made within 60 days from the date of the filing of the original petition with the Tax Court to ensure that it is timely made within the suspension period of section 6503. Additional pleadings or motions by petitioner or respondent will not extend the period within which an assessment must be made. Similarly, when a joint and several determination of a deficiency is made against a husband and wife and only one party petitions from the statutory notice, a timely assessment of the deficiency or liability must be made against the party not petitioning. First, consideration should be given to informally contacting the petitioner to see if the omission was inadvertent. If so, petitioners should be asked to file an amended petition before the limitations period would otherwise expire. If the omission of the spouse was not inadvertent, Appeals should be requested to make an assessment of the deficiency against the nonpetitioning spouse. Appeals should also be asked to request that collection activity be withheld during the pending litigation. If there is any doubt whether a particular year or party is before the court, the doubt should be resolved in favor of making the assessment. An improper assessment can be reversed and corrected but a missed assessment cannot be cured after the statute has expired.

There are circumstances in which collection against a nonpetitioning spouse might be appropriate: for example, if the petitioning spouse is seeking relief solely as an innocent spouse; if it is anticipated that the nonpetitioning spouse may file a bankruptcy petition (although in this situation the filing of a federal tax lien may be sufficient to protect the government's interest); if the majority of assets are held in the name of the nonpetitioning spouse; or if there is any other reason to believe a jeopardy situation exists against the nonpetitioning spouse.

If collection is not withheld because it is anticipated that the nonpetitioning spouse may file a bankruptcy petition, extreme care must be taken to avoid violation of the automatic stay provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(6), which expressly prohibits any act to collect, assess, or recover a prepetition claim against the debtor. Section 362(h) provides for damages, in the nature of costs, attorneys' fees, and actual and punitive damages, for violation of the automatic stay provisions. Accordingly, all efforts to assess or collect after a petition in bankruptcy is filed must be immediately terminated. Additionally, it is possible that transfers received by the Service from the nonpetitioning spouse will be considered preferential transfers subject to avoidance by the trustee in bankruptcy. 11 U.S.C. § 547. If so, it is likely that the Service's interest in any property returned to the estate will be protected by the filing of a notice of federal tax lien since the notice is not considered a preference item. However, to be a nonpreference item, the notice of federal tax lien must be properly filed so as to be perfected and enforceable against a bona fide purchaser at the time of the commencement of the nonpetitioning spouse's bankruptcy case. 11 U.S.C. § 545. Accordingly, Appeals should be instructed to take steps to file a notice of federal tax lien, when appropriate, as soon as possible.

If it comes to the attention of the Field attorney that the Service is continuing collection activity against the nonpetitioning spouse although requested by Appeals to withhold such activity, the Field attorney should consult with representatives of Collection to determine why they believe collection activity is necessary when the litigation concerning the amount of the deficiency is pending. If an agreement cannot be reached on withholding collection activity, the matter should be reconciled through the appropriate management officials of the respective organizations.

If, for a particular year, the taxpayer petitions from a notice of deficiency that includes both tax and penalties, and it is clear from the petition that the taxpayer assigns error only with respect to the penalties, no assessment of the tax deficiency should be made for that year since all matters relating to that tax year are still pending before the court and assessment continues to be restricted. Sections 6213(a), 6512. The case should be treated in the same manner as a case in which the statutory notice recites that certain adjustments were agreed to by the petitioner before the notice was issued. The taxpayer's concession should be confirmed in the answer and will be accounted for in the stipulation of facts or the Rule 155 computation, since the court's decision must recite a determination of both the conceded tax and redetermined penalty amounts. Care must also be taken in preparing the answer where specific adjustments from the statutory notice have not been assigned as error. As a general rule, that portion of the deficiency attributable to the issues that were either not raised or conceded by the petitioner should not be assessed, absent the execution of a waiver of the restrictions on assessment.

The petition and statutory notice should also be examined for adjustments over which the deficiency procedures may not be applicable. This applies particularly to those penalties under section 6651 (including section 6651(f)), which are based upon amounts shown on the taxpayer's return. See section 6665. These amounts should not be included in deficiency notices but should be immediately assessed if the statute of limitations has not expired.

Unaudited returns may be requisitioned by the Field attorney in connection with trial preparation, or such returns may be contained in the administrative files in cases which are referred to the Field attorney by Appeals for trial preparation. As a general rule, such returns should be immediately photocopied and the original returns sent back to the appropriate administrative official. Regardless of the method by which an unaudited return comes into the possession of the Field attorney, appropriate control records must be maintained. Such control records, however, do not relieve the Field attorney assigned the case of the responsibility of protecting the government against the running of the statute of limitations on such returns. For returns which are included in administrative files forwarded to Field Counsel offices by Appeals, extra care must be used in determining that no unaudited returns are included therein without specific control records being made thereon. Unaudited returns should be returned to Appeals or to the Area Director, as appropriate, in sufficient time to secure appropriate waivers and, in the absence of waivers, to effectuate assessments or issue any necessary statutory notices within the statutory period. If it becomes absolutely necessary for the Field attorney to retain an unaudited return for a period of time, such return must be released to the appropriate administrative official, preferably six months and in no event later than 90 days prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations.

Jeopardy assessments are not subject to the usual restrictions on assessment imposed by deficiency procedures, and may be made prior to the mailing of a notice of deficiency or during the pendency of a Tax Court proceeding. In such situations, a notice of deficiency allowing Tax Court review, or a notification to the Tax Court in a pending case, is sent subsequent to the making of the jeopardy assessment.

Generally speaking, a related case for coordination purposes is any pending case or matter which could be materially affected by a proposed action in a particular Tax Court case, or any pending case or matter in which a proposed action would materially affect a particular Tax Court case. The cases may be related because they involve the same petitioner, either for the same or for different taxes or taxable years or for different aspects of the same tax liability; or because they involve the same or similar issues arising out of the same or similar transactions; or because they involve different petitioners whose relationship is such that action taken with respect to one may materially affect the action to be taken with respect to the other. The case or matter related to the Tax Court case may be another Tax Court case or one pending before another court or at some other stage in its development; it may be pending at various administrative levels within the Service, or before any Associate or Field Counsel office, Treasury, or the Department of Justice. All related circumstances cannot be precisely described, nor can the extent of the coordination appropriate in every instance be specifically detailed. Field attorneys and managers should exercise judgment in determining the relationship of related cases or other matters.

[Reserved]

For a discussion of duplicate petitions, see CCDM 35.3.2.9

The Bankruptcy Code gives bankruptcy courts primary jurisdiction under 11 U.S.C. § 505 to hear and decide the merits of any unpaid tax, fine or penalty relating to a tax or any addition to the tax of the debtor or the bankruptcy estate.

In controversies between the Service and taxpayers in bankruptcy, the Bankruptcy Code provides that a bankruptcy court may choose to forego its right to determine the merits of a tax controversy in favor of the Tax Court. Other specific exceptions to their jurisdiction prevent bankruptcy courts from resolving the merits of a controversy if a court of competent jurisdiction in a contested proceeding has adjudicated the merits, entered a default, or entered a settlement between the parties. 11 U.S.C. § 505(a)(2)(A). Similarly, the bankruptcy court's jurisdiction is limited when the question is the estate's right to recover the debtor's tax refund. 11 U.S.C. § 505(a)(2)(B). See Rev. Proc. 81–18, 1981–1 C.B. 688.

If the bankruptcy court defers to the Tax Court while a proceeding in the Tax Court is pending on the date of the bankruptcy, the trustee is still given statutory authority under section 7464 to intervene as a party in the Tax Court proceeding to protect the interests of the taxpayer-debtor's estate. Intervention, however, is not mandatory. Field attorneys should be concerned about questions such as:

The jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court extends to both dischargeable and nondischargeable taxes. To the extent that payment is sought from estate assets by filing a proof of claim, the bankruptcy court has jurisdiction to determine the merits of the tax. That court also exercises subject matter jurisdiction over tax questions which affect only an individual debtor's personal liability for nondischargeable taxes that are not satisfied. This broad jurisdictional authority exists whether or not a case is pending in Tax Court on the same tax liabilities. The decision as to taxes of the first court will be res judicata as to the other. See McQuade v. Commissioner, 84 T.C. 137 (1985); Florida Peach Corp. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 678 (1988).

Where a petition in bankruptcy is filed after a case is docketed in the Tax Court, the Tax Court must be notified of such filing since the filing in bankruptcy operates as an automatic stay of the Tax Court's proceedings until the stay is lifted. See CCDM 35.3.9.2.

The automatic stay generally relates only to prepetition (before bankruptcy) tax liabilities and claims. Any taxes which accrue for tax periods after the petition date are generally not subject to the automatic stay. The specific actions stayed are as follows:

The bankruptcy code prohibits the Service from acting to collect prepetition taxes of the taxpayer by reason of the automatic stay. 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(6). Accordingly, collection matters are stayed while the automatic stay remains in effect. The Service may, however, conduct an audit to determine tax liability, may issue a notice of deficiency, and may assess an otherwise assessable liability, notwithstanding the automatic stay. 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(9).

If a statutory notice of deficiency is issued after a bankruptcy case has been instituted, the taxpayer is prohibited from petitioning the Tax Court during the time the automatic stay is in effect. 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(8). As a debtor in bankruptcy, the taxpayer may apply to the bankruptcy court to lift the stay and permit the filing of a petition in the Tax Court. 11 U.S.C. § 362(d). In that instance, the bankruptcy court will be permitting the Tax Court to acquire concurrent jurisdiction of the collateral matter to decide the merits of the tax claim against the bankruptcy estate. Under such circumstances, the trustee may be authorized by the bankruptcy court to intervene in the Tax Court proceeding (section 7464). Where the bankruptcy court lifts the stay, it also may reserve the right to rule on the Service's tax claim against the assets of the estate. If the bankruptcy case has a trustee other than the debtor, postpetition (in bankruptcy) tax deficiencies also should be noticed to the trustee. If the petitioner (in bankruptcy) filed, e.g., midway into the tax year, it is not uncommon for the notice of deficiency to be issued for the whole year in the name of the debtor.

The automatic stay provisions under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(8) continue until the happening of the earliest of certain specific events.

The Field attorney should assemble complete factual information concerning the timing of the petition in bankruptcy, the date the statutory notice is issued, the date on which there was a lifting of the stay from the bankruptcy court, the date of dismissal, discharge or closing, as appropriate, etc. The reason is that jurisdictional questions may still arise both as to the timeliness of the petition to, and as to the proper party before, the Tax Court. Even though the Service may issue a notice of deficiency while a stay is in effect without violating the stay, the taxpayer-debtor cannot petition the Tax Court from the notice while the stay is operative. Consequently, where the taxpayer unknowingly files a Tax Court petition in violation of the stay, the case must be dismissed on jurisdictional grounds. The appropriate motion to be filed by respondent would be a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. See CCDM 35.3.9.2.1.

Section 6213(f) provides that during the pendency of the automatic stay there is a suspension of the running of the 90=/ or 150=/day period and an additional 60 days within which a debtor may file a petition with the Tax Court after the stay is lifted. The application of I.R.C. § 6213(f) is discussed in several Tax Court opinions, including McClamma v. Commissioner, 76 T.C. 754 (1981); Ever Clean Services, Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1982–726; Thompson v. Commissioner, 84 T.C. 645 (1985); and Olson v. Commissioner , 86 T.C. 1314 (1986). Tacking is permitted under both I.R.C. §§ 6213(f) and 6503(i). See Galanis v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 34 (1989); cf. Clark v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 68 (1988). Where the bankruptcy petition is filed and the automatic stay is in effect at the time the notice is issued, none of the 90-day period has elapsed. Therefore, upon lifting of the stay, the taxpayer has 90 days plus 60 days under section 6213(f) to petition the Tax Court. See section 6503(h) for the rule on tacking where a bankruptcy petition is filed during the 90 or 150-day period after the notice of deficiency is sent. When respondent files a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction for violation of the automatic stay, and the stay has been lifted prior to the motion, the Tax Court has asked that respondent calculate the time under section 6213(f) during which the taxpayer may still (or could have) file(d) a timely petition to the Tax Court. The Field attorney, as an officer of the court and public servant, should notify the petitioner-taxpayer of the jurisdictional defect when discovered and apprise the petitioner of the remaining number of days to timely file a new Tax Court petition before the time expires. It is particularly important that the Field attorney determine whether a Tax Court petition was filed on a day when the automatic stay was in effect. It is equally important that the Field attorney verify the exact status of the bankruptcy proceedings in order to properly inform the Tax Court of the specific dates on which relevant events, e.g., discharge, took place that might affect the stay.

If a debtor receives a statutory notice of deficiency after the bankruptcy case has been dismissed, closed, or a discharge has been granted or denied, the automatic stay provisions do not apply and the taxpayer has the usual 90- or 150-day statutory period within which to petition the Tax Court. This will be a fairly common occurrence where the taxes determined in the statutory notice are nondischargeable and neither the Service nor the debtor requested the bankruptcy court to rule on the merits of the government's claim while the case was pending in that court.

It is of critical importance that the Tax Court be apprised of the precise party or parties involved in a bankruptcy proceeding. Quite frequently, the caption in a bankruptcy case itself will be misstated, for example, if a case is styled John Jones and the J. Jones Corp. or The J. Jones Corp., John Jones, President, it is critical to determine whether both John Jones (the individual) and J. Jones have filed for bankruptcy or whether only the corporation has filed. Similarly, the caption involving a parent and subsidiaries may be erroneously stated in the bankruptcy court pleadings. It is critical to confirm exactly which person or entity has filed and whether the particular filing affects the jurisdiction of the Tax Court.

If the bankruptcy judge decides that the bankruptcy court, rather than the Tax Court, should determine the tax liability, such litigation is to be handled by the Field attorney as a general litigation case. Conversely, if the Tax Court is to determine the amount of tax liability, such litigation will continue to be handled by the Field attorney as a tax litigation case.

If litigation had commenced in the Tax Court and in that action the merits of any tax liability had been tried prior to the date of bankruptcy, the Field attorney may seek to modify or terminate the stay so that the Tax Court may proceed to determine the tax controversy. As a result, concurrent jurisdiction between the Tax Court and the bankruptcy court can arise where the bankruptcy court lifts the automatic stay. It may be preferable for the same Field attorney to handle both the tax litigation aspect of the case as well as the general litigation aspect (the Field attorney might also handle the bankruptcy case directly if he or she is a Special Assistant United States Attorney).

When an affiliated group of corporations files consolidated returns, Treas. Reg. § 1.1502–77(a) provides that any Tax Court petition for members of the group must be filed by the common parent as agent. If the common parent is in bankruptcy, however, the automatic stay set forth in 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(8) prohibits the common parent from filing a Tax Court petition. See J & S Carburetor Co. v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 166 (1989). If solvent subsidiaries are actually barred from obtaining a preassessment adjudication of the tax liability, a court might prohibit the Service from initiating collection efforts against the subsidiaries. Accordingly, in appropriate circumstances, the Department of Justice should be asked to file a motion for modification of the automatic stay in bankruptcy court under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d) to permit the common parent to file the subject Tax Court petition. Alternatively, in appropriate circumstances, the Area Director may be advised to notify the common parent that the Service will deal with each member of the group on a separate basis with respect to the consolidated tax liability so as to permit the filing of a Tax Court petition by the individual solvent subsidiaries. Treas. Reg. § 1.1502–77(a).

[Reserved]

All docketed abatement of interest cases must be coordinated with the Assistant Chief Counsel (APJP) beginning at the time the Field attorney first receives service of a Tax Court petition contesting the Service's failure to abate interest. All documents served on respondent in abatement cases and all proposed Tax Court submissions, including motions, responses to motions, trial memoranda, and briefs must be sent to APJP, Branch 3 for pre-filing review, except for the following:

The Field attorney should review the petition for review of failure to abate interest to be sure it contains the information required under T.C. Rule 281(b), and, as in any case where a Tax Court petition is filed, either answer the petition or file an appropriate motion in accordance with T.C. Rules 36 and 37. See also CCDM 35.1.1.9.

The abatement of interest provisions are applicable in the context of a TEFRA partnership audit. During the partnership level proceeding, the action of the person(s) representing the partnership will be attributed to all partners for purposes of section 6404(e). Similarly, a Service error or delay in relation to an act at the partnership level can properly give rise to a request for abatement of interest by the partners. The partnership, as a fiduciary of a partner, may file an administrative claim on behalf of a partner. The partnership must comply with all of the requirements of Treas. Reg. § 301.6402–2 when filing the claim. Each partner must file a separate petition for review with the Tax Court because section 6404(h) only grants to the Tax Court jurisdiction over cases brought by taxpayers and a partnership is not a taxpayer. Further, the Tax Court rules do not generally allow joinder of multiple petitioners in a single petition.

The Small Tax Case procedures under section 7463 do not apply in abatement of interest actions; however, the Tax Court may hear abatement of interest cases during small tax case trial sessions.

To ensure that the abatement procedures and case law are developed in a consistent fashion, it is crucial that the coordination of these cases be thorough. The procedures set forth below, which track significant events and time periods, are to be used for the coordination of the abatement of interest issues.

Within 30 days of service of the petition, the Field attorney must:

Sections 6320 and 6330 establish formal procedures designed to ensure due process to taxpayers where the Service engages in collection action by notice of lien or levy (including seizures).

The Tax Court has promulgated rules that set forth the procedures for review of an Appeals notice of determination under Sections 6320(c) and 6330(d). T.C. Rules 330 through 334. The Field attorney should review the petition to be sure it contains the information required by T.C. Rule 331 and either answer the petition or file an appropriate motion in accordance with T.C. Rules 36 and 37.

The Small Tax Case procedures under section 7463 apply to CDP cases.

In any CDP proceeding before the Tax Court in which the petitioner raises a claim for relief from joint and several liability and the other spouse is not a party to the litigation, the respondent must serve notice on the other individual who filed the joint return for the years at issue. See CCDM 35.2.2.12.2.

[Reserved]

See CCDM 31.5.1 for Significant Case Procedures.

Prior to the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA), separate proceedings were required for each partner in a partnership. Now, pursuant to sections 6221 through 6233, the tax treatment of partnership items is determined at the partnership level in a unified partnership proceeding. T.C. Rules 240 through 251 contain specific procedures for readjustment of partnership items under section 6226 and adjustments to partnership items under section 6228.

Upon receipt of a petition or complaint in a partnership action, the Field attorney must determine if other actions have been filed and, if more than one petition or complaint has been filed, which one must be dismissed. The Field attorney should also review the petition to determine whether it was timely filed. For a discussion of various jurisdictional motions that may need to be filed in TEFRA proceedings, see CCDM 35.3.7.2.

It is the responsibility of the assigned Field attorney to compute the amount in dispute and have that amount entered on TLCATS no later than the time that the case is answered. The amount in dispute in TEFRA cases is computed by multiplying the amount shown as the total adjustments on the FPAA/FSAA by the highest marginal rate for individuals under section 1. The formula for calculating the amount in dispute is as follows: (total net adjustments in FPAA/FSAA * highest marginal rate) + credits disallowed in FPAA/FSAA = amount in dispute.

Upon completion of a TEFRA entity level proceeding, the Service is required to follow the standard deficiency procedures with respect to additions to tax or additional amounts. Section 6230(a)(2)(A); Temp. Treas. Reg. § 301.6231(a)(6)-1T(c).

Following a TEFRA partnership or subchapter S corporation proceeding, affected item notices of deficiency are sometimes issued for penalties or other affected items attributable to partnership/subchapter S item adjustments. Frequently, when a decision is entered in these affected item proceedings, no reference is made to the TEFRA entity. This leads to confusion regarding the application of section 6212(c) which generally prohibits the issuance of second notices of deficiency in non-TEFRA cases.

Section 6230(a)(2)(C) overrides section 6212