- 13 -
their claims are at best misguided and, in any event, unreliable
and improbable. On the preponderance of the evidence, we
conclude that the statutory notice of deficiency was sent to
Davina Sego and that the notices of attempted delivery of
certified mail were left at petitioners’ residence as testified
by the Postal Service employee. Further, we conclude that each
petitioner had an earlier opportunity to dispute in this Court
his or her tax liability for 1993, 1994, and 1995 and
deliberately declined to do so. See sec. 6330(c)(2)(B).
The applicable legal principles with respect to Davina Sego
are set forth in Erhard v. Commissioner, 87 F.3d 273 (9th Cir.
1996), affg. T.C. Memo. 1994-344, and Patmon & Young Professional
Corp. v. Commissioner, 55 F.3d 216, 218 (6th Cir. 1995), affg.
T.C. Memo. 1993-143, which held that taxpayers cannot defeat
actual notice by deliberately refusing delivery of statutory
notices of deficiency. Petitioners’ conduct in this case
constituted deliberate refusal of delivery and repudiation of
their opportunity to contest the notices of deficiency in this
Court, which provides the prepayment option for disputing tax
liability. (They still have the option, however, of paying the
tax and instituting suits for refund.) The provisions in section
6330(c)(2)(B) limiting in collection due process cases their
right to contest the underlying tax liability are clearly
intended to prevent the creation of a belated prepayment remedy
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011