- 9 -
creditor's property interest, and that actual notice was required
to satisfy the creditor's right of due process. In the present
case, by contrast, where respondent mailed the deficiency notice
to petitioners' last known address, actual notice of the income
tax deficiencies was not required. Unlike the creditor in Tulsa,
whose claim would have been totally extinguished under the
Oklahoma Probate Code, petitioners have alternative routes for
pursuing their claims because the Tax Court is not the sole venue
for litigation of a tax liability. The fact that taxpayers can
pay a deficiency, file an administrative claim for refund, and if
the claim is disallowed, bring an action for a refund in Federal
District Court or the Court of Federal Claims provides sufficient
due process.
The Court also notes, with respect to petitioners' argument
that their attorney should have been notified, the record in this
case is clear that, at all times during the audit of their
returns, Mr. Lewis, and not an attorney, purported to represent
petitioners. No powers of attorney were ever filed with
respondent authorizing a third party to represent petitioners.
The only contact respondent had with petitioners' attorneys was
to verify legal expenses claimed on petitioners' returns. This
communication did not rise to the level of client representation
such that a power of attorney was required, nor did petitioners
ever execute a power of attorney. Moreover, this Court has held
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011