- 13 -
2000, we do not sustain respondent’s determination that
petitioners are liable for the section 6651(a)(1) addition to tax
for 1999 and 2000.
Due Process
Petitioners’ principal argument in this case is that they
were denied due process during the December 9, 2004, meeting with
respondent. Although petitioners’ argument is not entirely
clear, we understand the argument to be that petitioners were
entitled to document their return positions by affidavits and
that respondent denied them due process by refusing to accept the
affidavits.
Due process requires that an “adequate opportunity * * *
[be] afforded for a later judicial determination of the legal
rights” of the taxpayer. Phillips v. Commissioner, 283 U.S. 589,
595 (1931). An adequate opportunity requires that the taxpayer
be heard “‘at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.’”
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976) (quoting Armstrong
v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552 (1965)); see also Harper v.
Commissioner, 99 T.C. 533, 542 (1992) (Petitioner not denied due
process where he was “afforded ample opportunity to be heard and
explain”). Petitioner’s right to a trial in this Court satisfies
that requirement. See Catania v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1986-
437.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011