- 54 -
CHIECHI, J., dissenting in part and concurring in part: I
dissent from the holding and rationale of the majority opinion.
I concur with the majority opinion only to the extent that the
majority opinion results in allowing petitioners to challenge the
existence or the amount of the tax liability specified in the
final notice--notice of intent to levy and notice of your right
to a hearing (notice of intent to levy) with respect to their
taxable year 2000.1 The foregoing result is the only proper
result in the instant case because the following regulations,
which bind respondent, require it:
(e) Matters considered at CDP hearing--(1) In
general. * * * The taxpayer also may raise challenges
to the existence or amount of the tax liability
specified on the CDP Notice for any tax period shown on
the CDP Notice if the taxpayer did not receive a
statutory notice of deficiency for that tax liability
or did not otherwise have an opportunity to dispute
that tax liability. * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) Questions and answers. The questions and
answers illustrate the provisions of this paragraph (e)
as follows:
* * * * * * *
1The notice of intent to levy specified that petitioners had
a total tax liability for 2000 of $222,315.34. That liability
consisted of the tax due, penalties, and interest thereon,
totaling $213,495, which petitioners reported in their Federal
income tax return for 2000 that they filed on or about Oct. 18,
2001, and which respondent assessed, plus any penalties as well
as interest on the total liability accruing after Oct. 18, 2001,
and before Mar. 19, 2002, the date on which respondent issued the
notice of intent to levy with respect to petitioners’ taxable
year 2000.
Page: Previous 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011