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:  Previous  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007