- 4 -
In response to the notice of determination petitioner filed
his petition with this Court on January 21, 2005. Paragraph 4 of
the petition stated:
My tax matters are being handled by Mr. Randall Baily
* * *, and is attorney of record. Brief Background [in the
notice of determination] is incorrect Mr. Baily did contact
Karen O’Neal (Employee ID No 91-07370) Left Message. Ms.
O’Neal return[ed][his] call and left [a] message. Mr. Baily
faxed information to Ms. O’Neal. Further Mr. Baily asked
that case be put in inactive/non-collectable status for now
since I have been disabled per Social Security Determination
as of 10/21/01 and have not been employed since that time.
* * * .
OPINION
Petitioner contends respondent failed to prove petitioner’s
income tax liability was valid or allow him an opportunity for an
administrative hearing within the meaning of section 6330(b).
Consequently, petitioner contends respondent’s determination to
proceed with the collection action was erroneous and an abuse of
discretion.
Petitioner disputed his 1991 income tax liability in
Middleton v. Commissioner, supra, and the Court found him liable
for the deficiency in tax, addition to tax, and penalty that
respondent assessed on August 28, 2003. Therefore, petitioner is
precluded from contesting his 1991 income tax liability. See
sec. 6330(c)(2)(B); Behling v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 572,
576-577 (2002).
Where the validity of the underlying tax liability is not
properly at issue, the Court will review the Commissioner’s
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007