Jorge Torres - Page 9

                                        - 8 -                                         
               This Court has held that taxpayers have had an opportunity             
          to dispute the underlying tax liability when they have received a           
          notice of deficiency.  Goza v. Commissioner, supra at 182-183;              
          Sego v. Commissioner, supra.  Whether the underlying tax                    
          liability is properly at issue in a section 6330 administrative             
          hearing depends on whether the taxpayer had an opportunity to               
          challenge the liability, not whether the taxpayer acted upon that           
          opportunity.  See sec. 6330(c)(2)(B); Sego v. Commissioner, supra           
          at 611.  Even though the taxpayer neglected to file a petition              
          with this Court to challenge the underlying tax liability, the              
          notice of deficiency offered the taxpayer the opportunity to                
          oppose the underlying liability.  See Sego v. Commissioner,                 
          supra.  When the taxpayer declines an opportunity to challenge              
          the underlying liability, section 6330(c)(2)(B) precludes the               
          taxpayer from contesting the underlying tax liability before the            
          Appeals officer.  See Goza v. Commissioner, supra; Sego v.                  
          Commissioner, supra at 610-611.                                             
               Petitioner argues that “There is a genuine issue of material           
          fact in this case, being that the petitioner has never had the              
          opportunity for a hearing regarding his tax liability.”  We                 
          disagree.  Petitioner does not dispute that he received a notice            
          of deficiency regarding his 2001 tax liability.  The notice of              
          deficiency provided petitioner with an opportunity to challenge             
          his 2001 tax liability.  Petitioner failed to petition this Court           






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011