Tax Court In Brief | Golditch v. Commissioner | Collection Due Process And Frivolous Arguments

• Published date: 05 April 2022
• Subject Matter: Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Tax, Trials & Appeals & Compensation, Tax Authorities
• Law Firm: Freeman Law
• Author: Freeman Law

The Tax Court in Brief - March 28th - April 1st, 2022

Freeman Law's "The Tax Court in Brief" covers every substantive Tax Court opinion, providing a weekly brief of its decisions in clear, concise prose.

For a link to our podcast covering the Tax Court in Brief, download here or check out other episodes of The Freeman Law Project.

Tax Litigation: The Week of March 28, 2022, through April 1, 2022

• Addis v. Comm'r, T.C. Memo. 2022-24 | March 28, 2022?|Urda, J. | Dkt. No. 12140-20L
• Porter v. Comm'r, T.C. Memo. 2022-25 | March 28, 2022?|Greaves, J. | Dkt. No 3544-21
• Villanueva v. Comm'r, T.C. Memo 2022-27 | March 31, 2022?|Goeke, J. | Dkt. No 19781-18

Golditch v. Comm'r, T.C. Memo. 2022-26 | March 29, 2022?|Lauber, J. | Dkt. No. 7726-20L

Short Summary: Jason Golditch'a "serial non-filer"'challenged collection for deficiencies determined by the IRS through "substitute for returns" prepared by the IRS for tax years 2011 and 2012. Based on the tax liability thereby determined, the IRS sent various notices of federal tax liens and rights to a hearing. In response, Golditch did not request a hearing, and he did not petition the Tax Court for regress. Years later (2019), the IRS sent a levy notice, and Golditch requested a collection due process (CDP) hearing, claiming that he did not receive earlier notices of deficiency. Golditch then failed to provide any of the forms requested by the IRS and he did not call in to the telephone conference as scheduled. A "last chance" letter was sent to Golditch, and he did nothing in response. A notice of determination upholding the levy notice was issued, and Golditch petitioned the Tax Court, claiming that he did not receive prior notices and challenging the underlying tax liability.

Primary Holdings:

• Golditch is not entitled to challenge his underlying liability because (1) he received (or deliberately refused to accept) notices of deficiency that were mailed to his last known address'and Golditch's unsupported statement that he "did not recall receiving notice" was insufficient; (2) the IRS later sent and Golditch admitted receiving a lien notice, and he did not file a CDP hearing request at that time; and (3) Golditch failed to submit any evidence to dispute his underlying liabilities at the CDP hearing. No abuse of discretion existed.
• And, because Golditch's arguments of "non-receipt of notices" were frivolous, an additional penalty of $2,000 was imposed.

Key Points of Law:?

• A taxpayer may dispute liability for a...