Thomas Butti - Page 8

                                         -8-                                          
          dealings with the U.S. Government.  It appears from his                     
          litigating history that he responds to notices as required to               
          preserve his litigating rights.3  Respondent does not contend               
          otherwise.  We conclude that petitioner did not receive the                 
          notice of deficiency or have any other opportunity to dispute his           
          underlying tax liability for 1989 or 1990.                                  
          C.   Conclusion                                                             
               In appropriate circumstances we may remand a case to the               
          Appeals Office to provide a hearing under section 6330(b).  See             
          Lunsford v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 183, 189 (2001); Harrell v.              
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-271.  We will remand this case with           



               3  Petitioner is litigious, frequently as the plaintiff or             
          appellant.  See, e.g., Butti v. Goord, 769 N.Y.S.2d 200 (2003);             
          People v. Butti, 767 N.Y.S.2d 401 (2003); People v. Butti, 749              
          N.Y.S.2d 479 (2002); Butti v. Goord, 723 N.Y.S.2d 131 (2001);               
          Butti v. Goord, 716 N.Y.S.2d 38 (2000); People v. Butti, 680                
          N.Y.S.2d 464 (1998); U.S. Bank Trust Natl. Association Trustee v.           
          Butti, 792 N.Y.S.2d 505 (App. Div. 2005); U.S. Bank Trust Natl.             
          Association Trustee v. Butti, 790 N.Y.S.2d 390 (App. Div. 2005);            
          Butti v. Goord, 765 N.Y.S.2d 313 (App. Div. 2003); People v.                
          Butti, 761 N.Y.S.2d 529 (App. Div. 2003); Butti v. Goord, 760               
          N.Y.S.2d 377 (App. Div. 2003); State v. Butti, 757 N.Y.S.2d 644             
          (App. Div. 2003); Butti v. Goord, 753 N.Y.S.2d 908 (App. Div.               
          2003); People v. Butti, 742 N.Y.S.2d 570 (App. Div. 2002); Butti            
          v. Goord, 716 N.Y.S.2d 349 (App. Div. 2000); Butti v. Goord, 710            
          N.Y.S.2d 236 (App. Div. 2000); People v. Butti, 672 N.Y.S.2d 794            
          (App. Div. 1998); Butti v. Angiolillo, 664 N.Y.S.2d 947 (App.               
          Div. 1997); Butti v. Butti, 543 N.Y.S.2d 94 (App. Div. 1989).               
          Petitioner apparently vigorously asserted his rights in these               
          cases and appealed every adverse ruling.                                    
                                                                                     
               Petitioner also has tenaciously asserted his rights in this            
          case.  If he received the notice of deficiency, as respondent               
          asserts, we believe he would have taken action to challenge it.             




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011