- 12 -
Moreover, in 2002, Mr. Jacob advised petitioner that his
1995 tax liability had been resolved when in fact he had done
nothing to resolve the underlying tax liability and knew that the
matter was set for a collection due process hearing. While this
deception in 2002 does not directly show that petitioner was
prejudiced by Mr. Jacob’s conduct (or lack thereof) in the period
during which petitioner had the opportunity to dispute the
underlying liability, it does demonstrate that Mr. Jacob was not
forthright in handling petitioner’s affairs and confirms that Mr.
Jacob realized that he had an obligation to act on the matter
sooner.
Under all of these circumstances, respondent’s argument
relying on petitioner’s knowledge imputed from others is
insufficient to show that petitioner had an opportunity to
dispute the 1995 liability. Petitioner trusted and relied
exclusively on Mr. Jacob to handle matters before the IRS while
Mr. Jacob kept information from petitioner and was intentionally
not representing petitioner’s interest. Accordingly, petitioner
did not otherwise have an opportunity to dispute the 1995
liability.
III. Conclusion
Respondent has not met his burden of showing that petitioner
received the notice of deficiency or otherwise had the
opportunity to dispute the tax liability. Thus, petitioner is
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011