- 4 -
it can only be a derivative of corporate activity.
* * *
Respondent’s Notice of Deficiency
On February 23, 2000, respondent (acting through Carol M.
Landy, Director of the Brookhaven Customer Service Center in
Holtsville, New York) issued a notice of deficiency to petitioner
for 1997. In the notice of deficiency, respondent determined a
deficiency of $12,113 in Federal income tax.2 Respondent
determined that petitioner failed to report wages of $60,833, as
well as dividends of $20, a gross distribution of $222, interest
of $33, and a prior year refund of $341.
Petitioner received the notice of deficiency. Petitioner
did not file a petition for redetermination with the Tax Court.
On September 11, 2000, respondent assessed the determined
deficiency, plus statutory interest. On that same date,
respondent sent petitioner a notice of balance due. Petitioner
failed to pay the amount owing.
Respondent’s Notice of Intent To Levy and Petitioner’s Response
On January 18, 2001, respondent sent petitioner a notice
entitled: “Final Notice--Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of
Your Right to a Hearing.”
2 Respondent determined the deficiency without taking into
account the tax withheld from petitioner’s wages, as a statutory
notice of deficiency does not take such withheld amount into
account. See secs. 31(a), 6211(b)(1). However, insofar as
petitioner’s ultimate tax liability is concerned, respondent
gives petitioner credit for the amount withheld from his wages.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011