Jason R. Henderson - Page 5

                                        - 5 -                                         
         for 1998.  Petitioner admits that he received the notice of                  
         deficiency issued to him for 1998 but contends that it is invalid            
         because it was not signed by the Secretary, and no delegation                
         order was provided to him upon request.  We reject petitioner’s              
         argument.  The Secretary’s authority to issue notices of                     
         deficiency was delegated to the Service Center Directors.  Del.              
         Ord. 77 (Rev. 28), May 17, 1996; secs. 301.6212-1(a), 301.7701-              
         9(b), Proced. & Admin. Regs.; see also Nestor v. Commissioner,               
         118 T.C. 162, 165 (2002).  The notice of deficiency petitioner               
         received was signed by the Memphis Service Center Director.                  
         Section 6212, which requires the Secretary to issue notices of               
         deficiency, does not require that respondent provide petitioner a            
         copy of the delegation order.  See Nestor v. Commissioner, supra             
         at 166.  Therefore, we conclude that petitioner did receive a                
         valid notice of deficiency for 1998.                                         
              Section 6330(c)(2)(B) provides that a taxpayer may challenge            
         the existence or amount of his underlying tax liability if he                
         “did not receive any statutory notice of deficiency for such tax             
         liability or did not otherwise have an opportunity to dispute                
         such tax liability.”  Because petitioner received a notice of                
         deficiency for 1998, he may not challenge his underlying tax                 
         liability for that year in a hearing or in this Court.  See id.              
              Petitioner next argues that the assessment against him was              
         invalid because he did not file a return showing any tax due.                






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011