-4-
But it was Wypychowski who was the putative TMP, and as TMP
he filed a petition with us in April 2001, 168 days after the
FPAA had been mailed. The Commissioner noticed the problem--a
TMP generally has at most 150 days to file a petition, secs.
6226(a)(90 days), 6226(b) (plus another 60 days as notice
partner, see Barbados #6 v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 900, 904 (1985)
--and successfully moved to dismiss the case for lack of
jurisdiction. After winning dismissal, the Commissioner assessed
Nehrlich for the deficiencies resulting from the disallowance of
the charitable deduction for the years 1995 and 1996.3 Nehrlich
did not pay, and the Commissioner followed up in September 2003
by sending a collection due process (CDP) notice of his intent to
levy and of the filing of a federal tax lien against Nehrlich’s
property.
Nehrlich asked for and got a CDP hearing, after which the
Commissioner mailed him a notice of determination, concluding
that
You have indicated that you have the ability to full pay
[sic]; you just disagree with the TEFRA assessments. You
are prohibited from raising the liability issue in your
hearing as you received the FPAA, (TEFRA equivalent of a
statutory notice of deficiency) and you had prior
opportunity to challenge the liabilities.
Nehrlich, a California resident at the time, filed a
petition with this Court, and we put the case on a trial calendar
C Nehrlich had carried over the charitable deduction to later
years. See sec. 170(d)(1).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007