- 7 -
petitioner’s physical illness and the resulting cloud on title to
petitioner’s residence, petitioner’s only significant asset).
Petitioner makes no other argument with regard to the propriety
of respondent’s notice of determination.
On February 13, 2002, at the hearing before us on
respondent’s motion for summary judgment, petitioner’s counsel
acknowledged that petitioner’s ill health was not recent but had
extended back over 20 years. Further, at that hearing, in
response to a question from the Court as to why hardship had not
been raised at petitioner’s collection hearing or otherwise
brought to the attention of respondent’s Appeals Office,
petitioner’s counsel acknowledged that he had had an opportunity
at the collection hearing to raise hardship but that he had
chosen not to do so.
Discussion
Statute of Limitations
Respondent argues that under section 6330(c)(4) and under
the principle of collateral estoppel petitioner is precluded in
this case from asserting that no effective extension to extend
the period of limitations on collection of petitioner’s unpaid
tax liability for 1980 was executed by petitioner. We agree with
respondent.
Section 6330(c)(4) expressly provides that taxpayers, at
collection hearings before respondent’s Appeals Office, may not
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011