- 15 -
But even if we were to assume, arguendo, that petitioners’
notices of transferee liability were not notices of deficiency
within the meaning of section 6330(c)(2)(B), we still must reject
their strained and illogical argument that the statute sets forth
two alternative criteria authorizing challenges to underlying tax
liability in collection proceedings. Section 6330(c)(2)(B)
plainly sets forth a single operative criterion, in the form of a
stricture: the person seeking to challenge the underlying tax
liability in a collection proceeding must not have had another
opportunity to raise the challenge. Presumably for the sake of
clarity and emphasis, the statute refers particularly to persons
who have not received notices of deficiency while referring more
generally to persons who “otherwise” lacked opportunities to
dispute their tax liabilities. Contrary to petitioners’
argument, however, these references do not denote separate
criteria; they merely circumscribe the two categories of persons
7(...continued)
proceed against a transferee to assess and collect under sec.
6901 the transferor’s income tax deficiency, the Commissioner
must use the same deficiency procedures that would apply in
assessing and collecting the deficiency from the transferor.
Those deficiency procedures include mailing a notice of
deficiency as required by sec. 6212. See Dillman v.
Commissioner, 64 T.C. 797, 800 (1975). Sec. 6901(f) explicitly
equates the mailing of the requisite notice of transferee
liability with the mailing of a notice of deficiency, by
referring to the “mailing to the transferee * * * of the notice
provided for in section 6212”.
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