- 9 -
the claim disallowance, that she had the right to file a suit for
refund in either the United States District Court or the United
States Court of Federal Claims. The record does not reflect that
any suit was filed seeking a refund.
Petitioner asserts in her objection that:
9. Pursuant to receipt of respondent’s appeals action,
petitioner hired an attorney to conduct further action,
especially court actions. Petitioner was not kept
informed of the attorney’s actions by the attorney and
assumed that appropriate action was being taken.
10. Petitioner maintains that there should have been
an appeal before the United States District Court
relating to her case. Petitioner believes that the
Court’s decision related to the appeal would have been
favorable to petitioner.
This case is clearly distinguishable from Montgomery. After
submitting the amended returns, petitioner was given an
opportunity to have the claim for refund considered by the IRS
Appeals Office. Further, upon receipt of the notice of claim
disallowance dated November 2, 2000, petitioner was provided an
opportunity to dispute the underlying tax liability by filing a
suit for a refund in the United States District Court or the
United States Court of Federal Claims. Petitioner did not file a
suit for refund.
Based on the foregoing we are satisfied that petitioner had
an opportunity to dispute the underlying tax liability within the
meaning of section 6330(c)(2)(B), and, accordingly, we agree with
respondent that petitioner is not entitled to challenge the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011