- 8 -
petitioners produced no evidence that would show any error
in the adjustments. They produced no evidence showing that
respondent has made any error in crediting their account for
all payments received from them with respect to their 1995
income tax liability, nor did they establish that the
remaining liability is any less than respondent claims it to
be. Whatever standard of review we apply to Appeals’
determination to proceed with collection by levy of the
4(...continued)
an opportunity to dispute the tax liability recited on the form.
The former interpretation is suggested by Aquirre, in which we
supported our holding by citing Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C.
604, 611 (2000), for the proposition that a taxpayer who
deliberately refuses to accept delivery of a notice of deficiency
repudiates his opportunity to contest the notice at Appeals or in
Tax Court. The distinction could be important in a case with
facts different from those before us today. Consider, for
example, a taxpayer who disagrees with an examiner’s proposed
increase in his tax liability and exercises his right to appeal
within the IRS by protesting the proposed increase to Appeals.
Suppose that Appeals rejects his protest, and the Commissioner
sends to the taxpayer’s last known address a notice of deficiency
that conforms to the requirements of sec. 6212. Suppose further
that the notice goes astray and is never delivered, and,
therefore, the taxpayer loses his opportunity to petition the Tax
Court for a redetermination of the deficiency. See sec. 6213(a).
Is the taxpayer precluded from raising the underlying tax
liability in a sec. 6330 hearing (and, if necessary, before the
Tax Court) because he already had an opportunity to dispute the
tax liability, or is he not precluded from raising the liability
because he signed no Form 4549-CG and waived no rights to any
administrative or judicial consideration? If he can raise the
underlying tax liability in a sec. 6330 hearing and, if
dissatisfied with the resolution of the hearing, before the Tax
Court, then in effect the actual receipt rule of sec.
6330(c)(2)(B) replaces the last-known-address-is-adequate rule of
sec. 6212 as a trigger for Tax Court jurisdiction, at least to
the extent the taxpayer wishes to dispute the underlying tax
liability.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011