Peter P. Baltic and Karen R. Baltic - Page 9
- 9 -
challenging underlying liability only in the sense that she was
contesting her own responsibility for the tax, not in the sense
of challenging the amount of that tax. Siquieros had not had an
opportunity before her CDP hearing to challenge her
responsibility for the unpaid tax; the Baltics did. And we
conclude that that is an important--indeed decisive--difference.
The word “liability” in section 6330(c)(2)(B) and section
301.7122-1(b)(1), Proced. & Admin. Regs., refers not just to an
amount of tax owed for a particular period but also the amount
owed by a particular person for a particular period. Section
6203, defining a tax assessment, states that an assessment is the
formal recording of a taxpayer’s tax liability, and the
accompanying regulation requires the summary record of assessment
to "provide identification of the taxpayer, the character of the
liability assessed, the taxable period, if applicable, and the
fund in trust for the United States under section 7501(a).
Slodov v. United States, 436 U.S. 238, 243 (1978). One remedy
that the Commissioner has against a business that fails to pay
these withheld taxes is to collect them from a “responsible
person” within the company; i.e., someone who was required to pay
over the tax. Sec. 6672. A section 6672 penalty is payable on
notice and demand, without issuance of a notice of deficiency.
See sec. 6212(a). Our court therefore has no jurisdiction to
review the penalty, Moore v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 171, 175
(2000), and a taxpayer must usually pay and sue for a refund to
get judicial review. Sec. 6672(c)(2); Steele v. United States,
280 F.2d 89 (8th Cir. 1960). A key issue in such cases is often
whether the person suing for a refund is a “responsible person”
within the meaning of section 6672(a). See, e.g., McGlothin v.
United States, 720 F.2d 6 (6th Cir. 1983).
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Last modified: March 27, 2008