David J. Tarantino, Docket No. 13025-19L, filed 9/20/24, asserts that “that petitioner’s financial disability also established reasonable cause for relief from certain “penalties”—i.e., additions to tax—that had been assessed against him. The letter therefore requested abatement of the additions to tax.” Order, at p. 2. It’s a Section 6511(h)(2) defense to the NITL; see my blogpost “The Song the Old Cow Died On – Part Deux,” 8/6/18* for more about this provision.

No one has produced NODs for three of the years David is fighting, so Judge Gale tosses that part of the petition for want of jurisdiction.

As for the rest, Appeals didn’t cover itself with glory.  David wants to challenge all the years on the ground he never received the SNODs for those years. And the SO didn’t properly address any.

“…we reject respondent’s implicit suggestion that petitioner’s alleged failure at the hearing to identify any irregularity in the assessment procedure amounts to a waiver of any challenge to the existence, mailing, or receipt of the notices of deficiency on which respondent relies. Petitioner’s efforts to challenge the underlying liabilities at the hearing, as well as the SO’s treatment of the underlying liability issues for years other than [out years] in the notice of determination, implicitly rest on the premise that petitioner did not receive notices of deficiency that would have precluded his challenges under section 6330(c)(2)(B). The SO’s failure to address the consequences of the notices of deficiency on which respondent now relies suggests that she either failed to recognize their existence or significance, or that she concluded for some reason that they did not have preclusive effect. We are thus left to question whether the SO properly verified that the underlying liabilities were lawfully assessed following the issuance of the notices of deficiency, and even if she did, whether her conclusions are adequately explained in the notice of determination. Order, at pp. 7-8.

IRS previously hit David with an NFTL years before to collect some of those taxes, but they were paid. It is unclear to Judge Gale whether IRS is seeking to collect the same liabilities or enhancements thereof, which latter attempt would trigger a new CDP.

In any event, no summary J.

So remand, for Appeals to resolve “(1) whether a notice of deficiency was properly issued to petitioner for any of the years at issue, (2) the validity of any assessment made for any of the years at issue on the basis of a notice of deficiency, (3) to what extent, and on what grounds, petitioner is precluded from challenging his underlying liability for each of the years at issue, and (4) for each taxable year for which Appeals concludes that petitioner is entitled to challenge any portion of the underlying liability, whether and on what grounds any amount assessed against petitioner should be abated.” Order, at p. 11.

A Taishoff “Good Job” to David’s trusty attorney, whom I’ll call Woody.

https://taishofflaw.com/2016/08/06/the-song-the-old-cow-died-on-part-deux-2/