With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the petition was filed, however, the Commissioner mailed the taxpayer a second notice of transferee liability with respect to the same liability. See id. The taxpayer petitioned the Court with respect to the second notice. See id. The Court dismissed the second action, stating that the taxpayer had no right to file the second petition because former section 272(f) precluded the Commissioner from mailing the second notice as a valid notice. See id. at 988; cf. Kiker v. Commissioner, 218 F.2d 389, 393 (4th Cir. 1955) (stating that a second deficiency notice issued for a taxable year was not invalid under former section 272(f) because, among other reasons, it determined an additional deficiency on account of fraud); Rowan Cotton Mills Co. v. Commissioner, 140 F.2d 277 (4th Cir. 1944) (<HOLDING>), aff’g on this issue 1 T.C. 865 (1943). Later,

A: holding that a party is not entitled to pursue a separate action for deficiency judgment where the foreclosure complaint includes a prayer for a deficiency judgment and the foreclosure court reserves jurisdiction to enter a deficiency judgment
B: holding that where notice of deficiency fails adequately to describe the basis on which the commissioner relies for his deficiency determination burden shifts to the commissioner to prove the accuracy of the deficiency determination
C: holding that a second deficiency notice issued for a taxable year was valid where it determined a deficiency in a different type of tax than did the earlier deficiency notice
D: holding that a notice of deficiency was invalid where it was the second notice mailed for that year and the taxpayer timely petitioned the court as to the first notice
C.