- 30 -
T.C. Memo. 2003-271 (concluding that circumstances justified
remand). Conversely, for instance, we do not remand cases where
the only arguments advanced are based on previously rejected
legal propositions or where the existing record allows for
disposition of all issues raised without need for further
development before Appeals. E.g., Keene v. Commissioner, 121
T.C. 8, 19-20 (2003); Lunsford v. Commissioner, supra at 189;
Kemper v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-195.
Here, because the assessments at issue for 1999 were based
upon the amounts reported on petitioner’s filed tax return, and
petitioner never received a notice of deficiency or other
opportunity to dispute those amounts, he would be entitled to
challenge his underlying liabilities in this collection
proceeding. Montgomery v. Commissioner, 122 T.C. 1, 9 (2004).
The Form 12153 submitted by petitioner indicates a desire to
claim business expenses not shown on his original return. In
light of our conclusion regarding the lack of a hearing for 1999,
we believe that petitioner should be afforded a final opportunity
to supply relevant documentation. Petitioner will also have a
further chance to raise relevant issues reviewed for abuse of
discretion, such as collection alternatives.
We caution petitioner, however, that were it not for the
unusual circumstances of this case, his history of delay and
failure to supply information would give us pause. We remind
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011