- 5 -
filing of the tax lien was appropriate. On June 25, 2002,
petitioner filed a petition for lien or levy action under section
6320(c) or 6330(d) in which he contended: (1) There had been no
valid assessment of taxes; (2) he had not received a statutory
notice and demand for payment of the taxes at issue; (3) he had
not received a notice of deficiency; (4) respondent incorrectly
determined his underlying tax liability; and (5) respondent
improperly refused to permit him to record the section 6330(b)
hearing.
OPINION
1. Whether Respondent’s Determination That the Filing of a Tax
Lien Relating to Petitioner’s 1998 Tax Liability Was
Appropriate Was an Abuse of Discretion
Petitioner contends that respondent’s determination that the
filing of a tax lien relating to his 1998 tax liability was
appropriate was an abuse of discretion. We disagree.
Petitioner may challenge the existence or amount of his
underlying tax liability because he did not receive the notice of
deficiency. Sec. 6330(c)(2)(B). Since he had moved after filing
his latest tax return, his failure to receive the notice of
deficiency was not deliberate. See Tatum v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 2003-115 (the taxpayers should have been allowed to
challenge their underlying tax liabilities at section 6330(b)
hearing because their failure to claim the notice of deficiency
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011