- 9 -
supra at 610.
We observe that the facts here differ in one respect from
the facts in Goza v. Commissioner, supra. Specifically, the
taxpayer in Goza was not permitted to challenge the existence or
amount of his underlying tax liability during the administrative
hearing. By contrast, the Appeals officer in the instant case
did permit petitioner to present information regarding the amount
of his tax liability during the administrative hearing. In this
regard, the notice of determination issued to petitioner makes
specific reference to petitioner’s failure to provide
substantiation of his basis in the S corporation.
In Sego v. Commissioner, supra, the taxpayers may have
been permitted to challenge the existence or amount of their
underlying tax liability during the administrative hearing. In
this regard, we note that the notice of determination that the
Appeals Office issued to the taxpayer-husband in that case
stated, in part, as follows:
Challenges to the existence or amount of liability
were raised * * * .
* * * * * * *
The assessments are deemed correct because you have
failed to present any credible evidence to overcome the
Commissioner’s presumption of correctness. You have
continued to procrastinate with regards to providing
additional information or evidence to support your
position.
Nevertheless, in Sego v. Commissioner, supra, this Court held,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011