Robert Newstat - Page 25

                                       - 25 -                                         
          “merits” of the controversy); Erickson v. United States, supra at           
          768 (same); Krueger v. Commissioner, 48 T.C. 824, 828-829 (1967)            
          (same).                                                                     
               The Court concludes that the circumstances of the instant              
          case meet all prerequisites for application of res judicata and             
          that petitioner is precluded under the doctrine from challenging            
          his underlying liability for 1985 in this proceeding.  Hence,               
          petitioner’s challenge to the validity of the assessment provides           
          no defense to the proposed collection action, and we need not               
          reach respondent’s alternative contention that failure to raise             
          the issue during the Appeals hearing process would likewise                 
          foreclose its consideration before this Court.13                            

               13 Additionally, the Court notes that petitioner’s stated              
          contention that, pursuant to sec. 6330(c)(1), it was the                    
          responsibility of the Appeals officer to determine whether                  
          relevant law and procedure had been complied with in the                    
          assessment and collection process does not here warrant a                   
          departure from application of res judicata.  First, since                   
          petitioner has at no time throughout the administrative                     
          proceeding or this litigation produced any evidence establishing            
          the specific dates or circumstances of his bankruptcy action, to            
          accept his contention as sufficient to invalidate the                       
          determination would work a significant broadening of the                    
          verification requirement beyond the parameters suggested in this            
          Court’s prior jurisprudence.  See Lunsford v. Commissioner, 117             
          T.C. 183, 186-188 (2001) (upholding use of IRS transcripts for              
          purposes of complying with the verification requirement until the           
          taxpayer provides evidence of irregularity in assessment                    
          process).  Second, although the Secretary retained authority to             
          abate the challenged assessment in these circumstances if he                
          concluded it was procedurally defective, that authority is                  
          discretionary, not mandatory.  Given petitioner’s earlier                   
          opportunity to raise this challenge in his deficiency case and              
          his signing of a stipulated decision to the contrary, the Court             
                                                             (continued...)           





Page:  Previous  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011