-16-
ity attributable to nonpartnership items, as
previously determined in this docketed pro-
ceeding, such change may be treated as a
computational adjustment under I.R.C.
�� 6231(a)(6) and assessed, credited or re-
funded accordingly.
(Hudspath v. Commissioner, US Tax Court Docket No.
7901-00)
Accordingly, in June of 2002, the IRS proceeded with
computational adjustments as referenced above. Mr.
Hudspath was issued copies of IRS’ computations, and
ultimately, Mr. Hudspath was issued the Notice of
Intent to Levy, upon which he requested the Collection
Due Process Hearing.
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
Applicable Law and Administrative Procedures
* * * The Letter 1058, Notice of Intent to Levy and
Notice of your Right to a Hearing, was mailed certi-
fied, return receipt requested on April 19, 2003, to
the taxpayer’s last known address.
* * * * * * *
* * * The taxpayer was provided the opportunity to
raise any relevant issue at the hearing.
This Settlement Officer has had no prior involvement
with respect to these tax liabilities.
Relevant Issues Raised by the Taxpayer
All issues raised by the taxpayer have been discussed
above. Per IRC 6330(c)(2)(B), underlying liability
challenges may only be raised if the person did not
receive any statutory notice of deficiency OR did not
otherwise have an opportunity to dispute such tax
liability. Appeals determined that a challenge to the
underlying liability could not be raised here under the
forum of this Collection Due Process request. * * *
[Mr. Hudspath] had previous opportunities to dispute
the tax liability in this case.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011