- 9 -
determination for abuse of discretion. [Sego v.
Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000).]
II. Review of Underlying Liability
Petitioners seek to challenge in this proceeding the amount
of their underlying tax liability for 1997. The record, however,
makes clear that petitioners received a notice of deficiency for
1997. Identical notices were sent to what respondent alleges and
petitioners do not dispute was their last known address. See
sec. 6212(b). That address is the same address as petitioners
have indicated to the Court should be used for correspondence in
connection with this case. Moreover, petitioners in fact
received one or both of the statutory notices in time to prepare
and sign on March 18, 2000, a timely Tax Court petition. See
sec. 6213(a). The reason why this petition was never actually
filed with the Court is not explained by the record, but it is
clear that petitioners failed to follow up adequately on their
submission to ensure its receipt and filing.
Accordingly, because a statutory notice of deficiency for
1997 was received by petitioners, they are precluded by section
6330(c)(2)(B) from challenging their underlying liability for
that year in this proceeding. Furthermore, this preclusion
mandated by statute is not altered or waived by the fact that the
Appeals officer chose to consider at the collection hearing
matters related to petitioners’ liability. See Behling v.
Commissioner, 118 T.C. 572, 577-579 (2002). Petitioners’
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011