-7-
hearing. The Appeals officer knew that petitioner had raised
numerous issues, none of which the Appeals officer characterized
as frivolous. We conclude that petitioner did not have an
opportunity for a hearing as required by section 6330(b).
B. Whether Petitioner Received the Notice of Deficiency for
1989 and 1990
A taxpayer may challenge the existence or amount of the
underlying tax liability if he or she did not receive a notice of
deficiency or otherwise have an opportunity to dispute that tax
liability. Sec. 6330(c)(2)(B); Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C.
176, 180-181 (2000).
Petitioner contends that he did not receive the notice of
deficiency for 1989 and 1990 and that he is not liable for tax in
the amount stated in the notice of determination.
Respondent points out that the Form 3877 states that
respondent mailed a notice of deficiency to petitioner, Gowanda
records state that Gowanda received the item of mail listed in
the Form 3877, and that petitioner signed for two articles of
certified mail on January 21, 1999. Respondent contends, based
on the presumption of official regularity, that petitioner
received the notice of deficiency.
Petitioner testified that he did not receive the notice of
deficiency. Respondent asks us to disregard petitioner’s
testimony because he has a criminal record. We disagree.
Petitioner’s habit is to aggressively assert his rights in
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011