- 7 -
assessed the tax. Petitioner relies on section 6501(a), which
generally provides for assessment within a 3-year period.
Petitioner, however, fails to understand that the April 7, 1998,
mailing of notices of deficiency to her caused the period for
assessment to be suspended and to remain open so as to permit the
assessment. The statute provides that the mailing of the notice
within the 3-year period suspends the running of the 3-year
period for a minimum of 150 days. See sec. 6503(a)(1).
Petitioner’s second contention is that Appeals should have
permitted her to address the underlying merits of respondent’s
deficiency determination for 1994. In that regard, section
6330(c)(2)(B) provides that a taxpayer may raise issues
concerning the underlying tax liability in a proceeding under
section 6330 where the taxpayer did not receive a notice of
deficiency or otherwise have an opportunity to dispute the tax
liability. See Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604 (2000); Goza
v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176 (2000). Because petitioner
received a notice of deficiency and did not petition this Court
for relief, she was not entitled to contest the merits of the
underlying liability at her section 6330 hearing.
Even though respondent was not required to consider the
merits of the underlying tax liability for 1994, the Appeals
officer did consider some of the underlying merits of the 1994
liability. On that point, we have held that permitting a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011