- 9 -
Although respondent issued a notice of deficiency to peti-
tioner with respect to his taxable year 1998 and although peti-
tioner did not file a petition with the Court with respect to
that notice, respondent acknowledges in respondent’s motion that
a review of respondent’s examination file with respect to peti-
tioner’s taxable year 1998 shows that that notice was returned to
respondent as unclaimed. According to respondent, “it appears
that petitioner did not receive the notice of deficiency for the
year 1998. Accordingly, he may challenge the underlying liabil-
ity.”
In light of respondent’s concession that petitioner did not
receive the notice of deficiency that respondent issued to him
for his taxable year 1998, we conclude that petitioner may
challenge the existence or the amount of petitioner’s liability
for that year. See sec. 6330(c)(2)(B).2
Where, as is the case here, the validity of the underlying
tax liability is properly placed at issue, the Court will review
the determination of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue on a de
novo basis. Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000).
2Sec. 6330(c)(2)(B) provides:
(B) Underlying liability.--The person may also
raise at the hearing [under sec. 6330(b)] challenges to
the existence or amount of the underlying tax liability
for any tax period if the person did not receive any
statutory notice of deficiency for such tax liability
or did not otherwise have an opportunity to dispute
such tax liability. [Emphasis added.]
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007