- 7 -
Court or a Federal District Court, as may be appropriate.
As previously mentioned and as applicable herein, section
6330(c)(2)(B) bars a taxpayer from challenging the existence or
amount of the taxpayer’s underlying tax liability in a collection
review proceeding if the taxpayer received a notice of deficiency
and disregarded the opportunity to file a petition for
redetermination with this Court. See Nestor v. Commissioner, 118
T.C. 162, 165-166 (2002).
In their petition, petitioners challenge the existence or
amount of the underlying tax liability for 2000. Respondent
contends that petitioners are barred under section 6330(c)(2)(B)
from mounting such a challenge in the context of this collection
review proceeding because petitioners received the August 5, 2002
notice of deficiency for the tax in question. Respondent deduces
the factual predicate for this contention from the following: (1)
At all relevant times, petitioners have used as their mailing
address the Lake Forest address; (2) the August 5, 2002 notice of
deficiency was sent by certified mail to petitioners at the Lake
Forest address; (3) the notice of deficiency was not returned to
respondent by the U.S. Postal Service undelivered; (4)
respondent’s Appeals officer successfully corresponded with
petitioners using the Lake Forest address; and (5) petitioners
have never denied receiving the August 5, 2002 notice of
deficiency.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011