When statutes guarantee deficiency proceedings and mandate issuance of notices, do statutes confer jurisdiction and due process even without compliance by the IRS?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Former IRS employees have been for fraud and embezzlement of income tax withholdings originally collected legally. The IRS still does not credit petitioner for most of the stolen withholdings. The victim did not owe tax. The IRS did not assess tax, though the IRS assessed penalties because IRS employees altered records of : petitioner's returns and framed the victim for fraud. The IRS conceded the vast majority of penalties, conceded that petitioner's declarations were accurate, and wrote settlements — then the IRS reneged on its settlements. Inconsistent IRS transcripts reveal ongoing corruption to records. Despite laws designed to make victims whole, the IRS's refusal to issue statutorily mandated notices yields many dismissals for lack of jurisdiction. Tax Court sometimes accepts jurisdiction on grounds of statutory guarantees even when IRS notices differ from those required by law, When both parties move to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction due to lack of a valid Notice of Deficiency, Tax Court sometimes grants a petitioner's motion. The Court of Appeals sometimes orders Tax Court to find which party's motion should be granted. 1. When statutes guarantee deficiency proceedings and mandate issuance of notices, do statutes confer jurisdiction and due process even without compliance by the IRS? 2. When due process is unavailable due to absence of statutory notices! and both parties move to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, which motion should be granted: petitioner's which results in refunding the overpayment, or the IRS's which deprives the victim of property and keeps the overpayment in the hands of corrupt collectors? 1 Despite an IRS letter stating it had mailed one (validity or invalidity unknown). i .