- 5 -
Petitioner’s contention is based on his allegation that he signed
a blank decision with the understanding that the income tax
deficiency would have been an amount approaching $1,500.
Petitioner further alleges that upon receipt of the entered
decision the amount of the “agreed” income tax deficiency was
almost double the amount he thought he had agreed to with
respondent. The Court asked petitioner whether he had brought
the alleged discrepancy to this Court’s attention after the
decision was entered in 1995. Petitioner testified that it was
not worth his effort or monetary cost at the time so he did
nothing. Respondent argued that petitioner’s $1,500 offer in
compromise was based on petitioner’s belief that the wrong amount
had been included in the decision.
Sections 6320 and 6330 provide for a hearing in connection
with certain collection activity by respondent. Under section
6330(c)(2)(B) a taxpayer may raise the merits of the underlying
liability if the taxpayer “did not receive any statutory notice
of deficiency for such tax liability or did not otherwise have an
opportunity to dispute such tax liability.” It is clear in this
case that petitioner received a statutory notice of deficiency
and did have an opportunity to dispute such tax liability. Under
the statute, and under the doctrine of res judicata, it does not
matter whether petitioner is now in a position to show that the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011