John Shere - Page 10




                                       - 10 -                                         
          fairly in dispute and that respondent is entitled to summary                
          disposition as a matter of law.                                             
               Petitioner’s principal complaint throughout the section 6330           
          hearing process was directed to the underlying tax liability and            
          his incorrect expectation that he could challenge that liability            
          at the section 6330 hearing.  However, the law is clear that if a           
          taxpayer received a notice of deficiency with respect to the                
          underlying liability, the taxpayer may not contest the liability            
          in a section 6330 hearing.  Sec. 6330(c)(2)(B).  The undisputed             
          facts confirm that petitioner received a notice of deficiency for           
          2002.  Petitioner submitted a letter evidencing his intention to            
          dispute the notice, which the Court treated as an imperfect                 
          petition to protect petitioner’s right to contest the notice of             
          deficiency.  The resulting case was dismissed for lack of                   
          jurisdiction because petitioner failed to comply with this                  
          Court’s order to file a proper amended petition.                            
               Petitioner’s other complaint was that he had requested a               
          face-to-face hearing.  However, the undisputed facts reveal that            
          the settlement officer advised petitioner that she would schedule           
          a face-to-face hearing if petitioner identified the relevant,               
          nonfrivolous issues he wanted to discuss at that hearing.                   
          Petitioner did not do so.  Respondent, acting in accordance with            
          his administrative procedures, scheduled two telephone hearings             
          that petitioner did not participate in.  The undisputed facts               







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: March 27, 2008