- 6 -
received a statutory notice of deficiency for that tax
liability.
* * * * * * *
The petitioners received a statutory notice of
deficiency for the tax year 2002. * * * More
specifically, as noted above, respondent properly
mailed the statutory notice of deficiency to the
petitioners’ last known address on July 29, 2004.
* * * Respondent is entitled to rely upon presumptions
of official regularity and delivery where the record
reflects proper mailing of the statutory notice of
deficiency. * * * There is no evidence that the
statutory notice of deficiency was returned to the
Service, nor have the petitioners ever denied its
receipt. Thus, the presumptions of official regularity
and delivery have not been rebutted. * * *
Accordingly, Settlement Officer Chapman properly
determined that the petitioner[s] [were] precluded from
disputing the underlying tax liability under section
6330(c)(2)(B).
Petitioners filed a Response to respondent’s motion. In
their Response, petitioners continue to focus on the underlying
tax liability, but they do not deny receipt of the July 29, 2004
notice of deficiency.
Hearing on Respondent’s Motion For Summary Judgment
Mrs. Manousos and counsel for respondent appeared at the
hearing on respondent’s Motion For Summary Judgment. At the
hearing, Mrs. Manousos stated that petitioners were unable to
specifically recall whether or not they had received the July 29,
2004 notice of deficiency.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007