James Curtis Barrett - Page 10

                                        - 9 -                                         
          of and resolution of that issue infra, the result in this case              
          will not change if the Court considers the underlying tax                   
          liability for the taxable year 1996.  We therefore assume,                  
          without deciding, that petitioner did not receive the notice of             
          deficiency and we review de novo his underlying tax liabilities             
          for the taxable years 1994, 1996, 1997, and 1998.                           
               Petitioner concedes receiving taxable wage income in 1994              
          and does not dispute the tax liability resulting from the wage              
          income.  Petitioner’s sole contention is that respondent failed             
          to properly credit him for withholding of Federal income taxes.             
               Petitioner introduced an earnings statement for 1994 showing           
          $8,747.27 of withholding.  This amount is reflected on                      
          respondent’s Form 4340, Certificate of Assessments, Payments, and           
          Other Specified Matters, and is not in dispute.  The earnings               
          statement also shows that respondent levied petitioner’s wages in           
          the amount of $14,274.50, which is not reflected on the Form                
          4340.  Petitioner believes he should be credited with that amount           
          and, in support of his claim, introduced a letter from                      
          respondent’s Appeals officer dated March 10, 2004.                          
               Although the Appeals officer’s letter acknowledges the levy,           
          it explains that the levied funds were applied to petitioner’s              
          outstanding liabilities for the taxable year 1983.  Petitioner              
          offered no evidence to rebut the explanation contained in the               

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011