-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