- 8 -
dispute her liability for those years. In particular, Mr.
Serchay, petitioner’s duly appointed representative, executed
Form 4549 consenting to the immediate assessment and collection
of the income taxes, fraud penalties, and interest that
respondent assessed and is attempting to collect from petitioner.
It is well settled that “for purposes of section 6330(c)(2)(B), a
taxpayer who has signed a Form 4549-CG waiving * * * [her] right
to challenge the proposed assessments should be deemed to have
had an opportunity to dispute * * * [her] tax liabilities and is
thereby precluded from challenging those tax liabilities.”
Zapara v. Commissioner, 124 T.C. 223, 228 (2005); see Aguirre v.
Commissioner, 117 T.C. 324, 327 (2001). Under the circumstances,
petitioner is deemed to have had a prior opportunity to dispute
her liabilities for 1995 and 1996 within the meaning of section
6320(c)(2)(B), and, therefore, she is not entitled to challenge
the existence or amount of her liabilities for those years during
the collection review process.3
3 To the extent that petitioner seeks to raise the
affirmative defense of the normal 3-year period of limitations
under sec. 6501(a), we observe that sec. 6501(c) provides an
exception to the period of limitations; i.e., in the case of
fraud, additional tax may be assessed at any time. Regardless,
the pleading of the statute of limitations by petitioner
constitutes a challenge to the underlying tax liability, which
challenge is barred because she is deemed to have had an
opportunity to dispute such tax liability. Hoffman v.
Commissioner, 119 T.C. 140, 145 (2002); Golden v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 2005-170.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011