Warren R. Follum - Page 12
Legal Research Home >
US Tax Court > 2007 > Warren R. Follum - Page 12
- 12 -
of collection actions, and collection alternatives. Sec.
6330(c)(2)(A). The person may challenge the existence or amount
of the underlying tax, however, only if he or she did not receive
any statutory notice of deficiency for the tax liability or did
not otherwise have an opportunity to dispute the tax liability.
Where the validity of the underlying tax liability is
properly in issue, the Court will review the matter de novo.
Where the validity of the underlying tax is not properly at
issue, however, the Court will review the Commissioner’s
administrative determination for abuse of discretion. Sego v.
Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000); Goza v. Commissioner, 114
T.C. 176, 181-182 (2000).
Petitioner did not receive the notices of deficiency
relating to his tax years 1990 through 1993 until after the
expiration of the 90-day period to petition this Court although
the notices were sent to his last known address.2 Follum v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-474. Respondent has not argued
that petitioner had the opportunity to challenge the correctness
of his tax liability by petitioning this Court from the notices
of deficiency. We conclude that petitioner’s underlying tax
liability for 1990 through 1993 is properly in issue.
2We note that the reason petitioner did not receive the
notices of deficiency is that petitioner failed to inform
respondent of a change in his address.
Page: 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Last modified: November 10, 2007