- 5 -
At trial, the primary focus was on petitioner’s challenge to
the underlying tax liability relating to 1977 through 1984.
Petitioner stated that respondent failed to “[provide] any
evidence of how [he] came up with * * * [the] 4340s” and that the
figures in Forms 4340 were “mostly dreamt up by [respondent].”
Respondent’s counsel stated that the deficiencies were based
“either upon delinquent returns filed by the petitioner or by
consent to the assessments.” Respondent’s counsel further stated
that petitioner was invited to submit “corrected returns”
relating to 1977 through 1984, but she “[did not] know * * *
[whether] there was any discussion beyond that.” The Court asked
respondent’s counsel why Appeals did not hold another section
6330 hearing in order to allow petitioner an opportunity to raise
the underlying tax liability with regard to those tax years.
She stated that she “believed” petitioner was allowed to present
evidence relating to the underlying tax liability for those tax
years. Petitioner stated that he “[did not] believe
[respondent]” placed any restrictions on the hearing. The Court
then asked respondent’s counsel whether Forms 4340 were used for
verification purposes at the hearing. Respondent’s counsel
stated that she “[did not] know * * * [if] the appeals officer
had the 4340s”, but the deficiencies were determined based on
petitioner’s self-assessment of tax liabilities for all years in
issue. Respondent’s counsel then informed the Court that the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011