-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 inPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011