- 36 -
it to perfect an assessment made in derogation of section
6213(a). We have previously construed the phrase "did not
receive any statutory notice of deficiency" as used in section
6330(c)(2)(B) as encompassing the situation where a notice of
deficiency, though mailed by the Commissioner, was not in fact
received by the taxpayer. See Calderone v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 2004-240; Tatum v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-115.
Respondent would have us extend the meaning of that phrase to
encompass the situation where a taxpayer did not receive any
notice of deficiency because the Commissioner failed to issue
one, in violation of section 6213(a).
We decline to do so. Such an interpretation would
contravene the intent underlying section 6330, a measure intended
to expand taxpayers' rights in collection actions. See S. Rept.
105-174, at 67 (1998), 1998-3 C.B. 537, 603. Under the
interpretation of section 6330(c)(2)(B) urged by respondent, de
novo review in a section 6330 proceeding could substitute for the
taxpayer's right to a deficiency proceeding under sections 6211-
6216. A taxpayer's rights in the former proceeding are more
circumscribed than in the latter.26 Moreover, such a construction
26 For example, a taxpayer must petition this Court for
review within 30 days of a determination under sec. 6330, see
sec. 6330(d)(1), whereas he has 90 days or, if outside the United
States, 150 days to petition with respect to a notice of
deficiency, see sec. 6213(a). See also Sarrell v. Commissioner,
117 T.C. 122 (2001) (no expanded filing period under sec. 6330
(continued...)
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