- 8 -
As in Bell v. Commissioner, supra, petitioner received a
prior hearing pursuant to section 6330 (the levy hearing) when
respondent proposed a levy to collect petitioner’s 1997
liabilities in June 2002. The Appeals employee conducting the
levy hearing rejected petitioner's claim that he had not received
the notice of deficiency for 1997 and therefore would not
consider petitioner’s challenge to the underlying tax liability.
When the levy notice of determination was issued, petitioner
could have obtained judicial review of the determination,
including the issue of whether the Appeals employee properly
refused to consider the underlying tax liability for 1997, but
did not. Accordingly, under Bell v. Commissioner, supra,
petitioner has had a prior opportunity to dispute the underlying
liability and may not do so in this proceeding.4 In sum,
petitioner forfeited his opportunity to obtain judicial review of
his claim that he did not receive the income reported by Witness
for 1997 by failing to petition the Tax Court with respect to the
earlier notice of determination he received concerning the levy.
As the challenge to the underlying tax liability for 1997 is
the only relevant issue that petitioner has raised, respondent is
4 Because we conclude that petitioner had a prior
opportunity to dispute the underlying tax liability as a result
of the levy notice of determination issued to him, we need not
address whether petitioner actually received the notice of
deficiency issued to him with respect to 1997.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007