- 5 -
To determine the correct standard of review, we must first
decide whether petitioner’s underlying tax liability is properly
at issue. See Lunsford v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 183, 185
(2001); Sego v. Commissioner, supra at 610; Goza v. Commissioner,
supra at 181-182. A taxpayer may raise challenges to the
existence or amount of the underlying tax liability if he did not
receive a statutory notice of deficiency or otherwise have an
opportunity to dispute the tax liability. Sec. 6330(c)(2)(B);
see Behling v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 572, 576-577 (2002).
At trial, petitioner admitted he received a notice of
deficiency for 1999 but argued that the notice was invalid.
Petitioner testified: “How is this statutory, Your Honor? Where
is the OMB [Office of Management and Budget] number? Any
mandated tax must have an OMB number on the form attached.
There’s nothing here. * * * it’s not a statutory notice.”4
Similar arguments have been considered and universally rejected
as being without merit by this Court and other courts. See,
e.g., James v. United States, 970 F.2d 750, 753 n.6 (10th Cir.
1992) (Lack of an OMB number on IRS forms and notices does not
4 Petitioner does not cite any authority for this argument.
However, it appears petitioner is arguing that the notice
violates the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (PRA), 44 U.S.C.
secs. 3501-3520 (2000). In general, the PRA requires Federal
agencies requesting information from the public to obtain
approval from the OMB and provides that an OMB control number
should be displayed on that document. PRA 44 U.S.C. sec.
3507(a).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011