- 35 -
this Court.25 Cf. Israel v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-198,
affd. 88 Fed. Appx. 941 (7th Cir. 2004). In our view,
respondent's failure to show that the disallowance of the
miscellaneous deductions fell within the "math error" exception,
or some other exception, to the proscription of section 6213(a)
on assessments without deficiency procedures is fatal to that
portion of the math error assessment that is based on the
disallowance of the miscellaneous deductions.
Respondent in effect seeks to cure the defect in the math
error assessment by conceding petitioner the opportunity to
dispute the disallowance in this proceeding. While it is true
that section 6330(c)(2)(B) provides that a taxpayer whose
property is the subject of a proposed levy may dispute the
"underlying tax liability" if he "did not receive any statutory
notice of deficiency for such tax liability or did not otherwise
have an opportunity to dispute such tax liability", that
provision should not be construed to allow respondent to employ
25 Sec. 6213(a) provides in part:
Except as otherwise provided in * * * [the case of
certain termination or jeopardy assessments] no
assessment of a deficiency in respect of any tax
imposed by subtitle A * * * and no levy or proceeding
in court for its collection shall be made, begun, or
prosecuted until * * * [a] notice [of deficiency] has
been mailed to the taxpayer, nor until the expiration
of such 90-day or 150-day period [in which the taxpayer
may petition the Tax Court for redetermination of the
deficiency] * * *.
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011