- 4 -
support of this assertion, nor did they propose any collection
alternatives. On April 29, 2004, respondent issued a Notice of
Determination to petitioners concluding “the IRS’s filing of the
NTFL was appropriate given the facts and circumstances presented
for Appeals consideration in this case and is therefore
sustained”.
Petitioners filed a timely petition in this Court appealing
the Appeals officer’s determination. The only issue petitioners
raised, both during appeals and at trial, was a challenge to the
validity of the underlying income tax liability for the year at
issue.
Petitioners may challenge the underlying tax only if they
did not receive a statutory notice of deficiency or were not
otherwise afforded an opportunity to dispute the tax liability.
Sec. 6330(c), (c)(2)(B); Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 609
(2000); Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 182-183 (2000).
Receipt of a notice of deficiency for purposes of this section
means receipt in time to petition this Court for a
redetermination of the deficiency asserted in the notice. Sec.
301.6330-1(e), Q&A-E2, Proced. & Admin. Regs.
Petitioners asserted for the first time at trial that they
never received the above-mentioned notices of deficiency.
Respondent has the burden of showing that petitioners received
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011