- 11 -
1090, 1095 (N.D. Ohio 2002); Loofbourrow v. Commissioner, 208 F.
Supp. 2d 698, 706 (S.D. Tex. 2002). “A ‘notice of deficiency’ is
only required in situations where there is a deficiency * * * and
not in situations where, as here, a taxpayer fails to pay the
amount of tax shown on the returns.” Jones v. Commissioner, 338
F.3d 463, 466 (5th Cir. 2003); accord Perez v. United States, 312
F.3d 191, 196-197 (5th Cir. 2002). Where a taxpayer receives
notice of a tax liability and has been afforded an opportunity to
dispute such tax liability at the administrative level, he may
not subsequently raise a judicial challenge to the underlying
liability pursuant to section 6330(d)(1). See Van Fossen v.
Commissioner, 4 Fed. Appx. 526 (9th Cir. 2001), affg. T.C. Memo.
2000-163. “An opportunity to dispute a liability includes a
prior opportunity for a conference with Appeals that was offered
either before or after the assessment of the liability.” Sec.
301.6330-1(e)(3), A-E2, Proced. & Admin. Regs.
In the present case, petitioner did not raise the issue of
her underlying liability as to the taxable year 2000 at her CDP
hearing and did not dispute such underlying liability with the
settlement officer. Therefore, petitioner’s underlying liability
as to the taxable year 2000 was not addressed in respondent’s
notice of determination and is not reviewable in her present
judicial challenge to this Court.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011