- 14 -
April 15, 1999, and September 13, 2002, to dispute his 1995 and
1996 tax liabilities administratively.7 For example, in 2002,
when petitioner was “feeling normal and up to par health wise”,
Mr. Stone scheduled and then rescheduled a conference with
petitioner to discuss respondent’s decision upholding the
disallowance of petitioner’s exemptions and Schedule C expenses.
Petitioner did not attend the conference or submit any of the
requested documentation.
Because petitioner failed to prove that he did not receive
the statutory notice of deficiency that was mailed to him on
April 15, 1999, with respect to his 1995 and 1996 tax liabilities
and because petitioner otherwise had an opportunity over a 3-year
period to dispute his 1995 and 1996 tax liabilities, we hold that
petitioner was properly precluded under section 6330(c)(2)(B)
from challenging the existence and amount of his 1995 and 1996
tax liabilities in his section 6330 proceeding.
C. 1999 Tax Liability
Respondent concedes that no notice of deficiency was sent to
petitioner for the 1999 tax year and that petitioner was not
precluded from challenging his 1999 tax liability at his section
6330 hearing. However, although petitioner made a blanket
7Petitioner does not argue that the “opportunity to dispute”
language in sec. 6330(c) refers to an opportunity to dispute a
tax liability in court nor does he challenge respondent’s
interpretation of sec. 6330(c) in sec. 301.6330-1(e)(3), Q&A-E2,
Proced. & Admin. Regs.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011