- 14 -
should have considered and reviewed the merits of the underlying
1995 tax liability because (1) respondent did not offer them the
opportunity of an Appeals conference after the first notice of
deficiency was rescinded and (2) petitioners did not receive the
second notice of deficiency for 1995.
At the outset, we must note that petitioners acknowledged
receipt of the second notice of deficiency, and respondent’s
employees specifically cautioned them in writing to petition this
Court if they wished to appeal respondent’s determination.
However, petitioners failed to file a petition in response to the
second notice in which respondent determined a self-employment
tax deficiency for 1995. Under section 6330(c)(2)(B) petitioners
are specifically precluded from questioning the merits of the
underlying tax liability for 1995 because they failed to petition
from respondent’s determination.
Petitioners also contend that respondent should have
provided them with Appeals consideration of their 1995 tax year
after the issuance and rescission of the first notice. In that
regard, respondent agreed to, and, did rescind the first notice
of deficiency, and after about 4 months, a second notice was
issued. Petitioners sought to meet with Appeals, but the record
is silent on whether they were afforded Appeals consideration
after rescission of the January notice and issuance of the May
notice. Even if respondent had not provided petitioners with an
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011