Opinion

Montgomery v. Comm'r

  • 122 T.C. 1
  • 122 T.C. No. 1
  • 2004 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 1
Court
United States Tax Court
Filed
Jan 22, 2004
Status
Published
Author
Chiechi
On the bench
"Dawson, Howard A.","Panuthos, Peter J.","Wells, Thomas B.",Laro,"Gale, Joseph H.","Marvel, L. Paige","Goeke, Joseph Robert",Gerber,Joel,"Halpern, James S.","Chiechi, Carolyn P."
Cited by
244 cases

concluding that term “underlying tax liability” in § 6330(c)(2)(B) refers to amounts assessed following issuance of notice of deficiency and includes statutory interest and penalties

How later courts described this case

  • concluding that term “underlying tax liability” in § 6330(c)(2)(B) refers to amounts assessed following issuance of notice of deficiency and includes statutory interest and penalties
  • holding that taxpayers are allowed to challenge the underlying liability where the taxpayers self- assessed their underlying liability and did not receive a statutory notice of deficiency
  • holding that taxpayers are allowed to challenge the underlying liability where taxpayers self- assessed their underlying liability and did not receive a notice of deficiency
  • holding that a taxpayer may challenge self-assessed tax liability in an administrative hearing if the taxpayer did not have a prior opportunity to challenge such liability

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

Chiechi, J., dissenting in part and concurring in part: I dissent from the holding and rationale of the majority opinion. I concur with the majority opinion only to the extent that the majority opinion results in allowing petitioners to challenge the existence or the amount of the tax liability specified in the final notice — notice of intent to levy and notice of your right to a hearing (notice of intent to levy) with respect to their taxable year 2000. 1 The foregoing result is the only proper result in the instant case because the following regulations, which bind respondent, require it:

(e) Matters considered at CDP hearing — {1) In general. * * * The taxpayer also may raise challenges to the existence or amount of the tax liability specified on the CDP Notice for any tax period shown on the CDP Notice if the taxpayer did not receive a statutory notice of deficiency for that tax liability or did not otherwise have an opportunity to dispute that tax liability. * * *

if: sf: ‡ % :}: ‡ ‡

(3) Questions and answers. The questions and answers illustrate the provisions of this paragraph (e) as follows:

if? if: if: :{: if: if* if:

Q-E2. When is a taxpayer entitled to challenge the existence or amount of the tax liability specified in the CDP Notice?

A-E2. A taxpayer is entitled to challenge the existence or amount of the tax liability specified in the CDP Notice if the taxpayer did not receive a statutory notice of deficiency for such liability or did not otherwise have an opportunity to dispute such liability. * * *

[Sec. 301.6330-l(e)(l), (3) Q&A-E2, Proced. & Admin. Regs.; emphasis added.]

Holmes, J., agrees with this dissenting in part and concurring in part opinion. The notice of intent to levy specified that petitioners had a total tax liability for 2000 of $222,315.34. That liability consisted of the tax due, penalties, and interest thereon, totaling $213,495, which petitioners reported in their Federal income tax return for 2000 that they filed on or about Oct. 18, 2001, and which respondent assessed, plus any penalties as well as interest on the total liability accruing after Oct. 18, 2001, and before Mar. 19, 2002, the date on which respondent issued the notice of intent to levy with respect to petitioners’ taxable year 2000.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.