- 7 - relating to petitioner’s income tax liability for the taxable year 1999, including the liability for the additions to tax. The Appeals officer took the position in the notice of determination that petitioner’s failure to file an income tax return for the year 1999 supported the position that the proposed lien balance should be sustained and prevented her from considering the information petitioner submitted concerning his bases and mortgage interest deductions. On September 2, 2004, petitioner filed a timely petition in this Court challenging the underlying liability for the taxable year 1999. OPINION Respondent’s initial position is that petitioner failed to accept the notice of deficiency for 1999 which was mailed to him, and therefore he loses his right to pursue objections to the underlying tax liability in this proceeding. Sec. 6330(c)(2)(B). Petitioner maintains he did not receive the notice of deficiency and therefore he may contest the underlying tax liability in this proceeding. We have found as fact that petitioner did not live at either of the addresses to which the notice of deficiency was sent and that he never received it. There was not a deliberate refusal of delivery. These facts distinguish this case from Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604 (2000). While the notice of deficiency was mailed to the last known address and is valid,Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011