- 19 -
dispute his tax liabilities. We agree. In Aguirre v.
Commissioner, 117 T.C. 324, 327 (2001), we specifically held that
a taxpayer who had signed a Form 4549-CG could not challenge the
underlying tax liability stated on the Form:
By signing the Form 4549, petitioners explicitly waived
the right to contest in the Tax Court their tax
liability for the years included in the Form 4549.
* * * The fact that section 6330 now provides an
opportunity to contest tax liability for taxpayers who
did not receive a notice of deficiency, sec.
6330(c)(2)(B), provides no consolation to petitioners
who themselves made the choice not to receive such
notice, see Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 611
(2000) (taxpayers who deliberately refused to accept
delivery of the notices of deficiency repudiated the
opportunity to contest the notices of deficiency in Tax
Court).
Petitioner has alleged that his waivers were ineffective
because he was mentally incompetent when he signed the Forms
4549-CG.5 In his request to respondent for a section 6330
5Respondent argued in a prehearing motion that petitioner is
estopped to challenge, on grounds of incompetence, the validity
of the Forms 4549-CG that he signed. Respondent argues that he
relied on the Forms in proceeding to assess the taxes rather than
first issuing a notice of deficiency (as would have been required
prior to assessment under sec. 6213(a)). If the Forms 4549-CG
are held to be entirely invalid and ineffective, then the time to
issue a notice of deficiency and assess the resulting tax may
have expired. Respondent argued that because he would be
prejudiced by the expiration of the period of limitations,
petitioner is estopped to deny the validity of the Forms 4549-CG
on the grounds that he was incompetent when he signed them. In
support of his argument, respondent cited Hollman v.
Commissioner, 38 T.C. 251, 260 (1962) (citing Stearns Co. v.
United States, 291 U.S. 54, 61 (1934)); Halper v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1997-58; Dale v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1982-654.
We need not decide whether and to what extent estoppel might
apply. Expiration of the period of limitations is an affirmative
(continued...)
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011