- 8 -
petitioner nevertheless did not live at the address when the
notice was mailed and did not otherwise have an opportunity to
dispute the liability for 1999. Petitioner raised the underlying
tax liability before the Appeals Office and is entitled to a
hearing regarding his liability for the Federal income tax in
1999.
Respondent’s position regarding the underlying tax liability
is that petitioner failed to raise that question properly before
the Appeals Office by failing to file a Federal income tax return
as requested by the Appeals officer. We must determine whether
petitioner’s failure to submit an income tax return for 1999
prevents the consideration of petitioner’s claims regarding his
bases and interest deductions. Our review of petitioner’s tax
liability under section 6330(c)(2)(B) is de novo. See Goza v.
Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 181 (2000) (quoting the legislative
history of section 6330, H. Conf. Rept. 105-599, at 266 (1998)).
In deficiency cases, this Court has allowed deductions
normally claimed on Schedule A, Itemized Deductions, to taxpayers
who have not filed income tax returns. See, e.g., Robertson v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-100, affd. 15 Fed. Appx. 467 (9th
Cir. 2001). There are stronger reasons to permit petitioner to
substantiate his bases because only the gains from the sales are
gross income. See sec. 61(a)(3). We see no material distinction
between precedent and the present case, and we will review the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011