- 12 -
of dismissal and decision, or order of dismissal for lack of
jurisdiction. Under the circumstances, section 6330(c)(2)(B)
clearly bars petitioner from contesting the existence or amount
of his tax liabilities for those years before the Appeals Office
or the Court.7 Petitioner failed to raise a spousal defense or
challenge respondent's proposed levy by offering a less intrusive
means for collecting the taxes in either the Appeals Office
hearing or in his Lien and Levy Action petition filed with the
Court. See sec. 6330(c)(2)(A). These issues are now deemed
conceded. See Rule 331(b)(4).
Petitioner has failed to state a justiciable claim for
relief in this Lien and Levy proceeding with respect the taxable
years 1980, 1981, 1982, and 1983. Petitioner's claim that the
period of limitations for assessment expired on May 8, 1987, for
these years constitutes a challenge to the existence of the
underlying tax liabilities. Section 6330(c)(2)(B) precludes
review of those tax liabilities in this proceeding.8
7 Petitioner’s liabilities for the taxable years 1980
through 1982 are established by the Court’s decisions entered in
docket Nos. 37347-84, 29751-88, and 21830-89, which decisions are
all final. The doctrine of res judicata precludes petitioner
from relitigating his liabilities for those years. See, e.g.,
Krueger v. Commissioner, 48 T.C. 824, 829-830 (1967).
8 We note that petitioner’s “defense” of the statute of
limitations appears to ignore a number of statutory provisions,
among them sec. 6501(c)(1), providing for an unlimited period of
limitations in the case of a false or fraudulent return with the
intent to evade tax, and sec. 6503, providing for the suspension
of running of the period of limitations under various
circumstances, including the issuance of a notice of deficiency.
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011