- 21 -
Hence, the combination of petitioner’s testimony and the
various documentary submissions leaves several facts unexplained.
For instance, if petitioner did not receive the notice of lien
filing and attached copy of Form 12153 sent by the IRS, when and
how did he learn about and obtain the Form 12153. The record
likewise remains vague on the timing and content of the alleged
e-mail notification from the credit watch service. It is also
unusual from a timing perspective that petitioner’s request to
the county recorder’s office for copies of the lien notices
occurred after the administrative proceedings in this case were
concluded, after the notice of determination issued, and less
than a week before he mailed his petition to this Court. Suffice
it to say that the claims of nonreceipt of proper notice from the
IRS are less than thoroughly convincing.
Regardless of the veracity of these claims, however, it is
clear that petitioner was aware of the lien filing within a
period to communicate in a timely manner so as to preserve his
rights to an Appeals hearing and subsequent judicial review. In
similar circumstances, this Court has ruled: “Because the
hearing had been timely requested within the prescribed 30-day
period, petitioner’s claims that respondent did not send Letter
3172 to petitioner’s last known address and that petitioner never
received it are beside the point.” Stein v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 2004-124. In that case, the Court concluded that any error
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011