- 10 -
did not intend to deny nonfilers a prepayment forum in all cases
where a section 6020(b) return is filed.7
Nevertheless, petitioner suggests that nonfilers should be
treated in the same manner as delinquent filers. Petitioner
contends that delinquent filers who have shown an amount of tax
on their return cannot contest their tax liabilities under the
deficiency procedures, but they must instead “pay first and
litigate later”. On the other hand, if a section 6020(b) return
is not good and sufficient for purposes of sections 6201(a)(1)
and 6211(a), nonfilers will be entitled to the deficiency
procedures. Petitioner contends that this creates an “absurd
result”, a disparity between delinquent filers and nonfilers that
could not have been the intention of Congress. We disagree.
There is a fundamental difference between a delinquent filer and
a nonfiler. The delinquent filer has accepted the correctness of
the amounts shown on his or her return, whereas the nonfiler has
not accepted those amounts. With respect to the delinquent
filer, section 6201(a)(1) authorizes the Secretary to assess
7See also Ruff v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1990-521;
Angstadt v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1990-433; Browder v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1990-408. In Ruff v. Commissioner,
supra, we stated that “the Internal Revenue Service may prepare
substitute returns for taxpayers who fail to do so themselves,
section 6020(b)(1), but the substitute return does not preclude a
taxpayer’s statutory right to a hearing on the deficiency and the
elements that comprise it.”
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011