Opinion
19000-22L
09-15-2023
PATRICK G. MALLOY, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Lewis R. Carluzzo Chief Special Trial Judge
This I.R.C. section 6330(d) case is before the Court on respondent's motion for summary judgment, filed July 7, 2023. Respondent's motion was heard in Atlanta, Georgia, on September 12, 2023. Counsel for respondent appeared and argued in support of the motion. Petitioner appeared and opposed it.
In a Notice of Determination dated July 27, 2022 (notice), a copy of which is attached to the petition, respondent determined that the filing of a Notice of Federal Tax Lien (NFTL) is an appropriate collection action with respect to petitioners': (1) income tax liabilities for 2014 and 2015; and (2) assessments of I.R.C. section 6702 penalties shown in the NFTL. Respondent now concedes that respondent improperly assessed the 2014 federal income liability shown in the NFTL, and that assessment has been abated. After respondent's concession, there remains in dispute petitioner's 2015 federal income tax liability and his liability for the assessments of the I.R.C. section 6702 penalties.
The 2015 federal income liability was assessed in due course following the issuance of a notice of deficiency to petitioner for that year. According to respondent, petitioner is not entitled to challenge the existence or the amount of the income tax liability in this proceeding. Taking into account the stipulation of facts filed September 6, 2023, and unopposed statements contained in respondent's motion, we agree with respondent. This is because petitioner received a notice of deficiency for that year, a fact petitioner does not dispute.
According to petitioner, however, the notice of deficiency is invalid because his surname is misspelled in the document. Namely, his surname is shown as "Mallory" rather than "Malloy". We find that typographical error to be of no consequence to the validity of the notice. It was properly addressed to petitioner, and most certainly nothing in the document mislead petitioner as to its purpose. That being so, petitioner cannot in this proceeding challenge the assessment of his 2015 federal income tax liability. See section 6330(c)(2)(B). Petitioner, however, is entitled to challenge the existence and/or the amounts of the I.R.C. section 6702 penalties. That being so, it is
ORDERED that so much of respondent's motion is granted that seeks to preclude petitioner from challenging the existence or the amount of his 2015 federal income tax liability in this proceeding. It is further
ORDERED that in all other respects, respondent's motion is denied. It is further
ORDERED that this case is continued, with jurisdiction retained by the undersigned.
The parties are advised that with respect to the issues remaining in dispute, the case will be set for trial during the Court's 2024 winter term unless a proposed stipulated decision is submitted sooner.