- 6 -
The notice of determination indicates that at the Appeals
conference on February 26, 2004, petitioner admitted receiving
the notice of deficiency and that her address had not changed.
Petitioner’s only evidence on the issue is that she does not
recall receiving the notice of deficiency. The Court concludes
that petitioner received the notice of deficiency.
Because petitioner received the notice of deficiency and
failed to file a petition with this Court, petitioner was not
able to challenge her underlying 1998 tax liability in the
Appeals Office hearing. Assuming, arguendo, that petitioner were
permitted to challenge the underlying liability, she has failed
to present sufficient evidence to support her position.
Where, as is the case here, the validity of the underlying
tax liability is not properly placed at issue, the Court will
review the administrative determination of the Appeals Office for
abuse of discretion. Sego v. Commissioner, supra at 610; Goza v.
Commissioner, supra at 181-183. The Court reviews only whether
the Appeals officer’s refusal to accept petitioner’s OIC was
arbitrary, capricious, or without sound basis in fact or law.
See Woodral v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 19, 23 (1999).
Petitioner alleges that her tax liability was discharged in
her Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding. The Supreme Court has
stated in Young v. United States, 535 U.S. 43, 44 (2002), that “A
discharge under the Bankruptcy Code does not extinguish certain
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011