- 19 -
A. Summary Judgment
In the amended petition, petitioner challenges “the
existence of the underlying tax liability”. Respondent contends
that petitioner is barred under section 6330(c)(2)(B) from
challenging the existence or amount of his underlying tax
liabilities in this collection review proceeding because
petitioner received notices of deficiency for the taxes in
question. Respondent deduces the factual predicate for this
contention from petitioner’s failure to deny receiving notices of
deficiency; rather, petitioner has only denied receiving “valid”
notices of deficiency. See Rennie v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
2002-296 (taxpayer’s denial of receiving “legal notice of
deficiency” did not mean that taxpayer failed to receive notice
of deficiency); Schmith v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-252
(taxpayer’s denial of receiving “valid notice of deficiency” did
not mean that taxpayer failed to receive notice of deficiency);
see also Nestor v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 162, 165-166 (2002)
(section 6330(c)(2)(B) bars a taxpayer from challenging the
existence or amount of the taxpayer’s underlying tax liability in
a collection review proceeding if the taxpayer received a notice
of deficiency and disregarded the opportunity to file a petition
for redetermination with this Court).
Rule 121(d) provides in relevant part as follows:
When a motion for summary judgment is made and
supported as provided in this Rule, an adverse party
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011