Michael Stein - Page 20

                                       - 20 -                                         
               Issue 1.  Petitioner’s Liability for the Assessed                      
               Deficiencies                                                           
               Petitioner has stated that he wishes to contest the                    
          underlying liabilities for his tax years at issue.  Petitioner              
          argues that respondent’s determination of the amounts of the                
          assessed income tax liabilities is incorrect because petitioner             
          would have little or no capital gains tax liability if                      
          respondent’s SFRs had used the actual cost bases, instead of                
          zero-cost bases, to determine his income from the sale of                   
          securities, and if the SFRs had accounted for a capital loss                
          carryover from 1987.                                                        
               Petitioner is liable for the assessed deficiencies because             
          the conditions have not been satisfied that would entitle him to            
          contest the deficiencies in this proceeding.                                
               Petitioner was entitled at the hearing with the Appeals                
          officer to challenge the existence or amount of the underlying              
          tax liabilities for the periods in issue only if he did not                 
          receive a statutory notice of deficiency or did not otherwise               
          have an opportunity to dispute the liabilities.  See sec.                   
          6330(c)(2)(B).                                                              
               Petitioner forfeited his opportunity to contest the                    
          underlying deficiencies in a proceeding in this Court under                 
          section 6330(d) because of his deliberate refusal of delivery of            
          the statutory notices.  See supra pp. 18-19.                                







Page:  Previous  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011