Kenneth A. Sapp - Page 15

                                       - 15 -                                         
          amended returns filed by petitioner for 1990-1993, concluding               
          that the amended returns were frivolous and that petitioner had             
          shown no basis for modifying the tax shown as due on the                    
          originally submitted returns.  At trial, petitioner was evasive             
          regarding the source of his income and claimed that his income              
          was not in any event taxable because he had merely received money           
          in exchange for labor.                                                      
               Petitioner has advanced only unspecified or frivolous                  
          challenges to his underlying tax liabilities (including the                 
          additions to tax) for 1990 through 1993.  We accordingly conclude           
          that the underlying liabilities are correct.                                
               With respect to the underlying liability for 1996, at trial            
          and in his request for a hearing, petition, and absentee letter,            
          petitioner maintained that he did not receive a notice of                   
          deficiency for 1996 and sought to contest the underlying                    
          liability for that year.  Respondent maintains that petitioner is           
          precluded from challenging the underlying liability for 1996                
          under section 6330(c)(2)(B) because he received a notice of                 
          deficiency for that year.                                                   
               To counter petitioner's denial that he received the notice             
          of deficiency for 1996, respondent points to the fact that the              
          notice was addressed to petitioner at his current address, an               
          address where petitioner indisputably received other IRS                    
          correspondence, because that correspondence was responded to by             






Page:  Previous  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011