- 6 -
of determination, and so we can have no jurisdiction to review
the Commissioner’s determination to issue an NIL for the Mayses’
1999 tax year.
The Mayses’ requests for CDP hearings for 2000-2002 are also
defective, not because they were too early, but because they were
too late. For the 2001 tax year, they waited too long before
requesting a CDP hearing--whether one calculates the time from
the date of the CDP Notice warning them of the NIL or the date of
the CDP Notice warning them of the NFTL. The IRS issued them
only a decision letter, not a notice of determination, and so we
clearly have no jurisdiction. See Investment Research, 126 T.C.
at 191.
For each of the remaining years--2000 and 2002--we have
jurisdiction to review the Commissioner’s determination to
sustain his NILs, but the Mayses have another procedural problem.
Their only ground for challenging the Commissioner’s collection
effort was the IRS’s refusal to reduce their taxes by granting
them dependency exemptions for their five children. In the
jargon of CDP law, they were challenging “the existence or amount
of the underlying liability” for those two tax periods. Sec.
6330(c)(2)(B). That law is clear, however, that a taxpayer may
make such a challenge if, but only if, he “did not receive any
statutory notice of deficiency for such tax liability or did not
otherwise have an opportunity to dispute such tax liability.”
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011