Joseph E. Lewis - Page 13
- 13 -
in circumstances where no subsequent prepayment judicial review
of the determination is available. We examine these competing
possibilities in turn.
As this Court has often stated, receipt of a notice of
deficiency serves as a taxpayer’s ticket to the Tax Court. See,
e.g., Manko v. Commissioner, 126 T.C. 195, 200 (2006); Bourekis
v. Commissioner, 110 T.C. 20, 26 (1998). For income, estate, and
certain excise taxes, respondent cannot assess a deficiency
before first issuing a notice of deficiency. Sec. 6213(a).6
Upon receipt, the notice of deficiency entitles a taxpayer to
petition this Court to have a Judge, and not the Commissioner,
review his or her tax liability de novo prior to the assessment
and collection of the tax. See Manko v. Commissioner, supra.
Thus, pursuant to section 6330(c)(2)(B), a taxpayer who actually
received a notice of deficiency may not raise the underlying
liability again in a collection review proceeding because he has
previously litigated the liability, by petitioning this Court, or
declined such an opportunity to litigate the liability, by
failing to petition this Court.
6This case does not involve a deficiency determination
requiring respondent to issue a notice of deficiency under sec.
6212 on which assessment is restricted by sec. 6213.
Accordingly, we do not address the applicability of sec.
301.6330-1(e)(3), Q&A-E2, Proced. & Admin. Regs., and the phrase
“otherwise have an opportunity” in sec. 6330(c)(2), to situations
requiring a notice of deficiency.
Page: 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Last modified: November 10, 2007