- 22 -
intent to levy, there is no evidence that his Idaho accountants
forwarded it to petitioner or discussed it with petitioner during
2003, or that petitioner otherwise actually received notification
of the final notice in time to request a section 6330 hearing.
Pursuant to the Form 2848 that respondent received on November 4,
2002, petitioner’s Idaho accountant, Mr. Clayton, was supposed to
receive only copies of notices; the original notices were
supposed to have been sent directly to petitioner. Mr. Clayton
might have been justified in thinking that this is what happened.
By the time petitioner requested a hearing in March 2004, he was
being represented by other accountants in Kansas.
In these circumstances, we decline to impute to petitioner
knowledge of the final notice of intent to levy. See Calderone
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-240. We conclude and hold that
petitioner had no prior opportunity to dispute his underlying
income tax liability. Accordingly, we conclude that section
6330(c)(2)(B) does not preclude petitioner from challenging his
underlying liability in this proceeding.
4. Whether Petitioner and Astrid Downing Filed a Joint
1995 Return
As previously discussed, petitioner claims that the
assessment of his 1995 tax was made more than 3 years after he
and Astrid Downing filed a joint return in 1996 and consequently
is time barred pursuant to section 6501(a). For the reasons
described below, we conclude that petitioner never filed his 1995
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007