John W. Schroeder, Jr. - Page 4




                                        - 4 -                                         
               Respondent’s records reflect that the notice of deficiency             
          was not returned undelivered to respondent by the Postal Service.           
          Petitioner has not denied that he received the notice of                    
          deficiency.                                                                 
               C.  Assessment of Petitioner’s Liability                               
               Petitioner did not file a petition for redetermination with            
          the Court challenging the notice of deficiency.  Accordingly, on            
          May 22, 1995, respondent assessed the determined deficiency and             
          additions to tax, as well as statutory interest.  On that same              
          day, respondent sent petitioner a notice and demand for payment,            
          informing petitioner that he had a liability for 1992 and                   
          requesting that he pay it.  Petitioner failed to do so.                     
               On October 9, 2000, respondent sent petitioner a second                
          collection notice for 1992.  Once again, petitioner failed to pay           
          the amount owing.                                                           
               D.  Respondent’s Final Notice and Petitioner’s Response                
               On November 10, 2000, respondent sent petitioner a Final               
          Notice-–Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Right to a              
          Hearing (the Final Notice).  The Final Notice was issued in                 
          respect of petitioner’s outstanding liability for 1992.                     
               On November 29, 2000, petitioner submitted to respondent a             
          Form 12153, Request for a Collection Due Process Hearing.                   
          Petitioner’s request stated that the period of limitations had              
          expired with respect to the assessment of petitioner’s tax                  






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011