- 12 - 1995. The notice of deficiency for 1996 and 1997 was sent via certified mail to petitioner’s last known address--which also is the address petitioner used in the petition and the amended petition. This notice of deficiency was not returned as undeliverable. Respondent submitted a certified mailing list to confirm these facts. Furthermore, petitioner did not claim that he did not receive the notice of deficiency for 1996 and 1997. Accordingly, petitioner is deemed to have received this notice of deficiency. Sego v. Commissioner, supra at 610-611. Petitioner chose not to file a petition for redetermination in response to these notices of deficiency. Accordingly, petitioner cannot contest the underlying deficiencies for 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997. Sec. 6330(c)(2)(B); Sego v. Commissioner, supra; Goza v. Commissioner, supra at 182-183. Claims that the limitation period for assessment has expired are challenges to the underlying tax liability. Boyd v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 127, 130 (2001). Therefore, petitioner cannot raise these claims in this proceeding. Where the validity of the underlying tax liability is not properly in issue, we review the Commissioner’s determination for an abuse of discretion. Sego v. Commissioner, supra at 610. Petitioner’s remaining argument appears to be that the verification requirement of section 6330 has not been met. Section 6330(c)(1) does not require the Commissioner to rely on aPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011