Terry L. Lindsay - Page 10




                                               - 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