June H. Ginalski - Page 2

                                        - 2 -                                         
          petitioner is entitled to question the underlying merits of her             
          1993 and 1994 income tax liabilities.                                       
                                  FINDINGS OF FACT1                                   
               June H. Ginalski, petitioner, resided in Phoenix, Arizona,             
          at the time her petition was filed.  Upon notification that                 
          respondent had filed a Notice of Federal Tax Lien with respect to           
          petitioner’s 1993 and 1994 income tax liabilities, petitioner               
          timely requested a hearing before an Appeals officer.  At the               
          hearing, petitioner sought to question the underlying merits of             
          her 1993 and 1994 tax liabilities which, to some extent, involved           
          whether amounts received by petitioner in connection with a                 
          divorce were income to her.  Petitioner did not wish to discuss             
          collection alternatives or other collection-related matters.                
               The Appeals officer refused to discuss the merits of the               
          underlying liabilities because petitioner had received a notice             
          of deficiency for her 1993 and 1994 tax years and had filed a               
          petition with this Court.  After a trial on the merits of her               
          1993 and 1994 income tax, it was held in a Tax Court Summary                
          Opinion that the amounts petitioner received during 1993 and 1994           
          from her divorce proceeding were taxable to petitioner for those            
          years.  Pursuant to this Court’s decision, respondent assessed              



               1 At trial, the parties stipulated facts and exhibits and              
          presented oral argument.                                                    





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011