Early Robertson, Jr. - Page 10

                                       - 10 -                                         
          notice of deficiency or otherwise have an opportunity to dispute            
          the tax liability.  With respect to the 1997 through 1999 years,            
          respondent concedes that petitioner was not issued a notice of              
          deficiency.  However, respondent contends that the “otherwise               
          have an opportunity to dispute” language of section 6330(c)(2)(B)           
          should not be interpreted to permit taxpayers to challenge self-            
          reported liabilities in conjunction with collection proceedings.            
               Subsequent to the hearing in the instant matter, the Court             
          issued its Opinion in Montgomery v. Commissioner, 122 T.C. ___              
          (2004).  The taxpayers in that case claimed that they had erred             
          in computing the tax shown on their original return.  Id. at ___            
          (slip op. at 14).  In denying a motion for summary judgment filed           
          by the Commissioner, we held that                                           
               section 6330(c)(2)(B) permits petitioners to challenge                 
               the existence or amount of the tax liability reported                  
               on their original income tax return because they have                  
               not received a notice of deficiency for 2000 and they                  
               have not otherwise had an opportunity to dispute the                   
               tax liability in question. * * * [Id.]                                 
          Consistent with Montgomery v. Commissioner, supra, we conclude              
          here that petitioner is not precluded by section 6330(c)(2)(B)              
          from challenging his underlying liability with respect to the               
          1997 through 1999 years.                                                    
               In opposing respondent’s motion for summary judgment,                  
          petitioner testified at the hearing as follows:                             
                    THE COURT:  All right.  Well, Mr. Robertson, as I                 
               understand it, you’re saying you believe you were                      
               entitled to a dependency deduction for your daughter,                  

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011