- 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 a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011