- 16 -
liability.7 See Hoffman v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. 140, 145
(2002); Boyd v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 127, 130 (2001).
Petitioner received no notice of deficiency with respect to
his 1995 or 1999 tax. Respondent contends, however, that
petitioner is not entitled to dispute his underlying liabilities
in this proceeding because petitioner failed to take advantage of
his prior opportunity to do so when, on April 22, 2003,
7 While relying upon these precedents, respondent also
expresses disagreement with them, stating:
It is respondent’s position that the issues raised
by petitioner’s contentions (involving the expiration
of statutes of limitations and application of payments
and credits) are more properly characterized as issues
relating to the unpaid tax in section 6330(c)(2)(A),
and should be reviewed for an abuse of discretion.
Nevertheless, respondent acknowledges that this Court
has held otherwise.
The administrative record shows that the Appeals Office not
only considered petitioner’s challenges but actually adjusted
petitioner’s liability downwards in response to the issues he
raised. Nowhere in the administrative record is there any
allusion to the sec. 6330(c)(2)(B) limitation. It would appear
that the administrative hearing was conducted and the notice of
final determination promulgated in adherence to respondent’s
espoused position that the issues petitioner raised were not
properly characterized as challenges to the underlying liability.
In these circumstances, it might be questioned whether respondent
has effectively waived the limitation imposed by sec.
6330(c)(2)(B). Cf. Behling v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 572, 578-
579 (2002) (holding that the Appeals Office’s consideration of
the taxpayer’s challenge to his underlying liability, in a
situation where the taxpayer had received a statutory notice of
deficiency, did not result in a waiver by the Commissioner of the
sec. 6330(c)(2)(B) limitation). Petitioner, however, does not
contend that respondent has waived the sec. 6330(c)(2)(B)
limitation. Accordingly, we give this issue of waiver no further
consideration.
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007