Kenneth A. Sapp - Page 14

                                       - 14 -                                         
          possible infirmities6 in the initial notice of determination is             
          unavailing in the circumstances of this case.                               
          Challenges to Underlying Liabilities                                        
               With respect to the 1990-1993 liabilities, petitioner                  
          claimed in his hearing request that the "numbers are completely             
          wrong".  Respondent conceded prior to the March 1, 2004,                    
          conference offered petitioner that petitioner was entitled to               
          dispute the underlying liabilities even though reported on                  
          returns filed for those years.7  See Montgomery v. Commissioner,            
          122 T.C. at 1.  In the absentee letter, petitioner contended that           
          he owed only a small fraction of the amounts respondent sought to           
          collect, but he offered no specific grounds of dispute.  The 2004           
          supplemental determination considered both the returns and the              

               6 Since respondent sought a remand in order to offer                   
          petitioner a hearing subsequent to the petition's filing, we                
          express no opinion whether sec. 6330 required respondent to do so           
          in this case, given petitioner's failure to respond to Appeals              
          Officer Ford's Sept. 13, 2001, letter offering a hearing.  Cf.,             
          e.g., Taylor v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-25 (hearing                   
          requirement satisfied where taxpayer fails to avail herself of              
          reasonable opportunity for hearing), affd. 130 Fed. Appx. 934               
          (9th Cir. 2005).                                                            
               7 Petitioner also complains that he did not receive a notice           
          of deficiency with respect to these liabilities.  However, as the           
          taxes were reported as due on petitioner's returns, no notice of            
          deficiency was necessary to assess them.  See sec. 6201(a)(1).              
               Petitioner at various times claimed that he had not filed a            
          return for 1992.  Respondent was initially unable to locate                 
          petitioner's 1992 return, but eventually did so and provided a              
          copy to petitioner prior to the conference scheduled for Mar. 1,            
          2004.  See supra note 4.  We are satisfied on the basis of the              
          record that petitioner filed a return for 1992 in which he                  
          reported as due the tax assessed by respondent.                             





Page:  Previous  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011