- 10 -
raise the issue either in the petition or in his response to
respondent’s summary judgment motion and memorandum which did
discuss that issue. We find that petitioner has conceded the
specific issue of whether he received the notices of deficiency.7
It follows, then, that the underlying tax liability need not be
addressed in our review of the determination. See Sego v.
Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610-611 (2000); Goza v. Commissioner,
114 T.C. 176, 182-183 (2000).
Petitioner’s principal argument in the Form 12153 and at the
Appeals hearing was: Whether the IRS recorded an assessment
against petitioner as required by section 6203 and section
301.6203-1, Proced. & Admin. Regs., and whether the Appeals
officer was required to present him with a Form 23C, Assessment
6(...continued)
were not accepted and some were returned with the address
obliterated and with the notation “Return to Sender not at this
address”. See sec. 6212(a) and (b)(1). Petitioner argued at the
hearing that the notices must be actually received to be valid.
7Similarly, in Davis v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 35, 39
(2000), the taxpayer failed to present any allegations or facts
in his petition to this Court so as to raise the issue of whether
a notice of deficiency was received. We stated:
Petitioner does not allege that he did not receive a
notice of deficiency for the tax liabilities in issue,
nor does he allege that he did not have an opportunity
to contest the deficiency determinations. Because
petitioner failed to aver the facts specified in
section 6330(c)(2)(B), which are required to put the
underlying tax liability in issue, petitioner’s
underlying tax liability is not properly before the
Court. [Citation omitted.]
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011