- 8 -
deficiency should be redetermined on the basis of a return he
alleges to have recently submitted; he also urges that additions
to tax should be abated because respondent has failed to show
that Form 1040 complies with the PRA. These late-raised issues
are not properly before the Court for decision. See Bartschi v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-268. More fundamentally, because
petitioner received a statutory notice of deficiency with respect
to 2003 but failed to petition this Court to redetermine the
deficiency, petitioner is not entitled to challenge his
underlying tax liability in this collection proceeding. See sec.
6330(c)(2)(B); Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000).
In any event, petitioner’s argument that the PRA may in some
manner negate statutory penalties for failure to file tax returns
and pay taxes is without merit. Because the requirement to file
tax returns and the imposition of penalties for failing to do so
represents a “legislative command, not an administrative
request”, the PRA provides no “escape hatch” from penalties for
failing to file tax returns. United States v. Hicks, 947 F.2d
1356, 1359 (9th Cir. 1991);3 accord James v. United States, 970
3 United States v. Hicks, 947 F.2d 1356 (9th Cir. 1991),
involved a criminal conviction for willful failure to file tax
returns. In an unpublished opinion, the Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit held that the reasoning in Hicks applied equally to
a case involving civil penalties for failure to file returns, pay
income tax, and pay estimated taxes. Beam v. Commissioner, 1992
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007