- 9 -
of deficiency * * * or did not otherwise have an opportunity to
dispute such tax liability.” In the context of a section 6330
proceeding, we have held that a taxpayer cannot circumvent the
condition by deliberately refusing delivery of the statutory
notice. See Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604 (2000); Baxter v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-300. In those cases, it was shown
that the taxpayers intentionally refused delivery. In this case,
respondent has sufficiently shown that a notice was mailed to
petitioner’s last known address and that the U.S. Postal Service
made several attempts at delivery, but the notice was unclaimed.
That evidence is sufficient to raise a presumption of official
regularity and of delivery. See Sego v. Commissioner, supra at
610-611.
In addition, petitioner does not argue that he was deprived
of the opportunity to contest the statutory notice in court.
Instead, petitioner argues that respondent had no basis for
issuing the notice. Petitioner’s argument contains the
assumption that the notice was issued, but that it is without
merit or substance. Accordingly, we treat this situation as one
where petitioner had the opportunity to contest respondent’s
determination and chose not to. In the context of a section 6330
hearing, the question of whether the failure to challenge was
deliberate is irrelevant. The language of the statute only
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011