- 10 -
The foregoing presumptions, coupled with the factors
previously discussed, oblige us to conclude that petitioners
received the July 29, 2004 notice of deficiency. As a
consequence, section 6330(c)(2)(B) bars petitioners from
challenging the existence or amount of their outstanding
liability for 2002. See Bailey v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-
241.
Conclusion
Petitioners have failed to make a valid challenge to the
appropriateness of respondent’s intended collection action, offer
an alternative means of collection, or raise a spousal defense.
See Rule 331(b)(4) (“Any issue not raised in the assignments of
error shall be deemed to be conceded.”). In the absence of a
valid issue for review, we conclude that respondent is entitled
to judgment as a matter of law sustaining the October 4, 2006
notice of determination. Accordingly, we shall grant
respondent’s Motion For Summary Judgment, as supplemented, and
thereby sustain the determination of the Appeals Office
permitting respondent to proceed with collection for 2002.
To give effect to the foregoing,
An order granting respondent’s
Motion For Summary Judgment, as
supplemented, and decision for
respondent will be entered.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Last modified: November 10, 2007