                               T.C. Memo. 2016-191



                         UNITED STATES TAX COURT



                    ROBERT TALBOT, Petitioner v.
           COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



      Docket No. 26598-14L.                         Filed October 17, 2016.



      Robert Talbot, pro se.

      Gregory M. Hahn, Lisa M. Oshiro, and William D. Richard, for respondent.



            MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION


      KERRIGAN, Judge: This case was commenced in response to two Notices

of Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) under section 6320 and/or 6330

(notice of determination). The first notice of determination sustained the filing of

a notice of Federal tax lien (NFTL) and proposed levies to collect petitioner’s

2001 and 2003-2005 income tax liabilities. The second notice of determination
                                         -2-

[*2] sustained the filing of an NFTL regarding petitioner’s 2007-2009 income tax

liabilities.

       Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal

Revenue Code in effect at all relevant times. All monetary amounts are rounded to

the nearest dollar.

       The issues for consideration are: (1) whether petitioner may challenge his

underlying tax liabilities for the years at issue and (2) whether respondent’s

determination to proceed with the collection actions regarding petitioner’s unpaid

income tax liabilities and penalties for the years at issue was proper.

                               FINDINGS OF FACT

       Some of the facts are stipulated and are so found. We incorporate by

reference the stipulation of facts and the attached exhibits. Petitioner did not file

Federal individual income tax returns for tax years 2001, 2003-2005, and 2007-

2009. Pursuant to section 6020(b) the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) prepared

substitutes for returns for tax years 2001, 2003-2005, and 2007-2009. Petitioner

resided in Alaska when he timely filed his petition.

Petitioner’s Mailing Addresses

       Petitioner resided at three different addresses within the same ZIP Code in

Wasilla, Alaska. From 2001 to October 2011 petitioner resided on Wanamingo
                                        -3-

[*3] Drive. On October 3, 2011, the IRS received a letter from petitioner

indicating that his new address was on Nelson Avenue. On January 19, 2012, the

IRS received another letter from petitioner indicating that his new mailing address

was 452 Knik Goose Bay Road (Goose Bay Road). Since January 2012 petitioner

has used the Goose Bay Road address as his mailing address.

Notices of Deficiency

      Tax Years 2001, 2003-2005

      On January 12, 2009, respondent sent petitioner a notice of deficiency for

tax year 2003, a notice of deficiency for tax year 2004, and a notice of deficiency

for tax year 2005. On November 6, 2009,1 respondent sent petitioner a notice of

deficiency for tax year 2001. Respondent addressed each notice of deficiency to

petitioner at the mailing address maintained on the date that the notice was mailed.

These notices were all mailed to the Wanamingo Drive address.

      For the notice of deficiency related to petitioner’s 2001 tax year, respondent

completed a PS Form 3877, which shows that the notice was mailed by certified

mail to petitioner’s Wanamingo Drive address. The PS Form 3877 bears a stamp

from the Denver, Colorado, U.S. Postal Service (USPS) office and the signature of

      1
       The copy of the notice of deficiency for 2001 does not show a date of
mailing. Respondent produced a properly completed PS Form 3877 showing that
the notice was mailed on November 6, 2009.
                                        -4-

[*4] the USPS Postmaster and lists the number of pieces of mail received at the

USPS office.

      For the notices of deficiency related to petitioner’s 2003-2005 tax years,

respondent prepared a Substitute USPS Form 3877 (IRS certified mailing list).

The IRS certified mailing list shows that the notices were mailed by certified mail

to petitioner’s Wanamingo Drive address. It bears a stamp and signature from the

IRS office in Ogden, Utah, and the same date and tracking number as the

corresponding notices of deficiency.

      Tax Years 2007-2009

      On March 20, 2012, respondent issued to petitioner a notice of deficiency

for tax years 2007-2009. Respondent addressed the notice to petitioner’s Goose

Bay Road address, the address petitioner maintained on the date the notice was

mailed.

      For the notice of deficiency related to petitioner’s 2007-2009 tax years,

respondent filled out an IRS certified mailing list, which shows that the notice of

deficiency was mailed by certified mail to 425 Knik Goose Bay Road. The IRS

certified mailing list bears a stamp from the Seattle, Washington, USPS office and

the signature of the USPS Postmaster and lists the numbers of pieces of mail

received by the USPS office.
                                         -5-

[*5] The IRS case activity report also shows that respondent sent a notice of

deficiency related to petitioner’s 2007-2009 tax years to 425 Knik Goose Bay

Road. An IRS field internal revenue agent group manager for Alaska and Tacoma,

Washington, testified that the IRS generally issues notices in windowed envelopes

so that the address on a notice of deficiency is the address where the USPS would

attempt to deliver the notice. She testified that the “window on the envelope is

designed to fit where the address comes out on specific letters or on specific

reports so that nobody has to retype an envelope.”

      None of the notices of deficiency was returned to the sender. Petitioner

denies receiving any notices of deficiency for the years at issue. Petitioner did not

file a petition with this Court in response to any of the notices of deficiency.

Petitioner’s CDP Hearing Requests

      On June 25, 2012, respondent sent petitioner a Letter 1058, Final Notice of

Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing, regarding tax years 2003-

2005. The Letter 1058 informed petitioner that he had to request a collection due

process (CDP) hearing by July 25, 2012. On July 11, 2012, respondent sent a

second Letter 1058 regarding petitioner’s 2001 tax year. The second Letter 1058

informed petitioner that he had to request a CDP hearing by August 10, 2012.
                                        -6-

[*6] On July 19, 2012, respondent sent petitioner two Letters 3172, Notice of

Federal Tax Lien Filing and Your Right to a Hearing under IRC 6320, for tax

years 2001 and 2003-2005. The Letters 3172 informed petitioner that respondent

had filed an NFTL with respect to 2001 and 2003-2005. The Letters 3172 further

informed petitioner that he had to request a CDP hearing by August 27, 2012. On

September 27, 2012, respondent sent petitioner an additional Letter 3172 for tax

years 2007-2009. This Letter 3172 informed petitioner that respondent had filed

an NFTL for 2007-2009 and that petitioner had until November 5, 2012, to request

a CDP hearing.

      Petitioner timely filed three Forms 12153, Request for a Collection Due

Process or Equivalent Hearing (CDP hearing request). On July 25, 2012,

petitioner filed his first CDP hearing request in response to respondent’s notice of

intent to levy to collect his 2003-2005 income tax liabilities. On August 9, 2012,

petitioner filed his second CDP hearing request in response to the notice of intent

to levy to collect petitioner’s 2001 income tax liabilities and the filed 2001 and

2003-2005 NFTL. On November 5, 2012, petitioner filed his third CDP hearing

request in response to the filed 2007-2009 NFTL.

      In all three CDP hearing requests petitioner requested a face-to-face hearing

at the Appeals Office closest to his residence and stated that he wished to address
                                         -7-

[*7] the following issues: (1) whether the IRS followed all proper procedures; (2)

whether he was liable for the assessed tax; (3) whether he should be held liable for

the penalties accrued; and (4) whether collection alternatives were available to

him. Petitioner further stated that he wished to address the underlying liabilities,

which he asserted he had not had a prior chance to contest.

Petitioner’s CDP Hearings

      First CDP Hearing

      Respondent first responded to petitioner’s third CDP hearing request. On

May 20, 2013, respondent’s settlement officer sent petitioner a letter scheduling a

telephone CDP hearing for July 1, 2013. The letter explained that petitioner did

not qualify for a face-to-face CDP hearing because he had not filed Federal

income tax returns for 2007-2009 and had not provided requisite financial

documentation for consideration of collection alternatives.

      The letter further informed petitioner that he could not dispute his

underlying tax liabilities because respondent had previously sent him a notice of

deficiency for tax years 2007-2009. Since in his CDP hearing request petitioner

alleged that he had not received a notice of deficiency, the letter requested that

petitioner submit correct Federal income tax returns for 2007-2009 along with

supporting documentation.
                                        -8-

[*8] The letter also requested that petitioner provide a completed Form 433-A,

Collection Information Statement for Wage Earners and Self-Employed

Individuals, and the following documentation: (1) proof of latest payroll stubs and

income for 2013; (2) bank statements for all accounts for the past six months; (3)

asset and liability listings; (4) unfiled Forms 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax

Return, for 2006, 2010, 2012, and 2013;2 and (5) proof of estimated tax payments

for tax year 2013. Petitioner was asked to provide the requested documents, make

the requested payments, and file the missing tax returns by June 22, 2013.

      On June 28 and July 31, 2013, petitioner sent correspondence to the

settlement officer stating that he would be unable to participate in the telephone

CDP hearing at the date and time chosen. He reiterated his request for a face-to-

face hearing. He further stated that he had not received a notice of deficiency for

2007-2009.

      On November 7, 2013, the settlement officer informed petitioner that he had

not provided any documentation previously requested and that he had an

additional 14 days to provide the requisite information for the settlement officer’s




      2
       The letter might have mistakenly requested a signed tax return for 2013,
because the letter was sent in May 2013. Nevertheless, our analysis remains
unaltered.
                                         -9-

[*9] consideration. Petitioner failed to provide the settlement officer with any of

the requested information.

      On March 5, 2014, respondent issued a notice of determination, sustaining

the filed NFTL for tax years 2007-2009. In the notice of determination the

settlement officer stated that he or she had verified that all requirements of

applicable law and administrative procedure had been met. Specifically, the

settlement officer noted that “Appeals has review[ed] the Certified mail listing to

confirm [that] the Statutory Notice of Deficiency was sent by certified mail to you

for your 2007, 2008, and 2009 audit assessments.” The settlement officer did not

review any other documentation or information to verify the validity of the

assessments.

      Second CDP Hearing

      On November 7, 2013, respondent’s settlement officer sent petitioner two

letters scheduling a telephone CDP hearing for December 4, 2013. The letters

mirrored the settlement officer’s correspondence for the first CDP hearing. The

letters informed petitioner that he did not qualify for a face-to-face CDP hearing

because he had not filed income tax returns for 2001 and 2003-2005 and denied

his request to dispute his underlying tax liabilities because respondent had

previously mailed him notices of deficiency for tax years 2001 and 2003-2005.
                                        - 10 -

[*10] Petitioner was asked to file his missing tax returns, provide requested

financial documents, and make requested payment by December 2, 2013.

      On December 9, 2013, petitioner faxed a letter to the settlement officer,

stating that he would be unable to participate in the telephone CDP hearing. He

reiterated his request for a face-to-face hearing. He further stated that he had not

received a notice of deficiency for 2001 or 2003-2005.

      On December 11, 2013, the settlement officer informed petitioner that he

had not provided any documentation previously requested and that he had an

additional 14 days to provide the information for the settlement officer’s

consideration. Petitioner failed to provide the settlement officer with any of the

requested information.

      On March 5, 2014, respondent issued a notice of determination, sustaining

the filed NFTL and the proposed levies to collect petitioner’s 2001 and 2003-2005

income tax liabilities. In the notice of determination the settlement officer verified

that all requirements of applicable law and administrative procedure had been met.

Specifically, the settlement officer noted that she had reviewed the certified

mailing lists and copies of the notices of deficiency to verify that the notices of

deficiency were properly mailed.
                                        - 11 -

[*11] Petitioner’s Amended Petitions

      On April 7, August 13, September 25, and December 4, 2014, petitioner

filed with this Court a petition and three amended petitions, respectively.

Petitioner’s third amended petition contends that: (1) because he did not receive

any notices of deficiency for the years at issue, respondent erred by not allowing

him to challenge the underlying tax liabilities; (2) respondent erroneously denied

him face-to-face CDP hearings; (3) respondent erroneously denied him the

opportunity to audio record the CDP hearings; (4) respondent failed to provide

him “with any admissible evidence that would support respondent’s claims to the

alleged tax”; (5) he did not receive fair and impartial CDP hearings; and (6)

respondent failed to meet all applicable requirements.

                                     OPINION

I.    Jurisdiction

      Section 6331(a) authorizes the Secretary to levy upon the property and

property rights of a taxpayer who fails to pay a tax within 10 days after notice and

demand. Before the Secretary may levy upon the taxpayer’s property, the

Secretary must first notify the taxpayer of the Secretary’s intent to levy. Sec.

6331(d)(1). The Secretary must also notify the taxpayer of his or her right to a

CDP hearing. Sec. 6330(a)(1).
                                        - 12 -

[*12] Section 6320(a)(1) requires the Secretary to provide written notice to a

taxpayer when the Secretary has filed an NFTL against the taxpayer’s property and

property rights. See also sec. 6321. Additionally, the Secretary must notify the

taxpayer of his or her right to a CDP hearing. Sec. 6320(a)(3)(B) and (C).

      If the taxpayer requests a CDP hearing, the hearing is conducted by the

Appeals Office. Sec. 6330(b)(1). At the hearing the taxpayer may raise any

relevant issue relating to the unpaid tax or the proposed collection action. Sec.

6330(c)(2)(A). Once the settlement officer makes a determination, the taxpayer

may appeal to this Court for review. Sec. 6330(d)(1).

II.   Petitioner’s Underlying Tax Liabilities

      Where the validity of the underlying tax liability is properly at issue, we

review that matter de novo. Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000);

Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 181-182 (2000). A taxpayer may challenge

the underlying tax liability during a CDP hearing if he or she did not receive a

statutory notice of deficiency for such liability or did not otherwise have the

opportunity to dispute such liability. Sec. 6330(c)(2)(B); see also Montgomery v.

Commissioner, 122 T.C. 1, 9-10 (2004). The Court will consider an underlying

tax liability on review only if the taxpayer properly raised the issue during the

CDP hearing. Giamelli v. Commissioner, 129 T.C. 107, 115 (2007); see also sec.
                                        - 13 -

[*13] 301.6330-1(f)(2), Q&A-F3, Proced. & Admin. Regs. A taxpayer did not

properly raise an underlying tax liability if the taxpayer failed to present the

settlement officer with any evidence regarding the liability after being given

reasonable time. See sec. 301.6320-1(f)(2), Q&A-F3, Proced. & Admin. Regs.

      Petitioner is not entitled to challenge his underlying tax liabilities for the

years at issue because he did not properly raise the underlying liabilities during his

CDP hearings. Petitioner failed to present any evidence regarding the liabilities

after being given reasonable time. For both his first and second CDP hearings,

petitioner had one month to file his missing tax returns, provide the requested

financial documentation, and make the requested payments. After he missed the

initial deadlines, the settlement officer allowed petitioner an additional 14 days to

submit the requested information. Petitioner failed to provide the settlement

officer with any of the requested information. Petitioner did not meaningfully

challenge the underlying tax liabilities during his CDP hearings. Id.

Consequently, petitioner’s underlying tax liabilities are not before the Court.

 III. Respondent’s Administrative Determinations

      Where the validity of the underlying tax liability is not properly at issue, we

review determinations by the Commissioner’s Appeals Office for abuse of

discretion. Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. at 610; Goza v. Commissioner, 114
                                         - 14 -

[*14] T.C. at 182. An abuse of discretion occurs if the Appeals Office exercises

its discretion “arbitrarily, capriciously, or without sound basis in fact or law.”

Woodral v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 19, 23 (1999). The Court does not conduct

an independent review and substitute its judgment for that of the settlement

officer. Murphy v. Commissioner, 125 T.C. 301, 320 (2005), aff’d, 469 F.3d 27

(1st Cir. 2006). If the settlement officer follows all statutory and administrative

guidelines and provides a reasoned, balanced decision, the Court will not reweigh

the equities. Link v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2013-53, at *12.

      A.     First Notice of Determination

      The first notice of determination sustained the filed NFTL and the proposed

levies to collect petitioner’s 2001 and 2003-2005 income tax liabilities. Petitioner

contends that respondent did not meet the applicable requirements during his CDP

hearings. Petitioner further contends that the settlement officer did not properly

verify that the notices of deficiency were duly mailed before the assessment of tax.

      Following a CDP hearing the settlement officer must determine whether to

sustain the filing of the NFTL or the proposed levy. In making that determination,

section 6330(c)(3) requires the settlement officer to consider: (1) whether the

requirements of any applicable law or administrative procedure have been met; (2)

any issues appropriately raised by the taxpayer; and (3) whether the collection
                                        - 15 -

[*15] actions balance the need for the efficient collection of taxes and the

legitimate concern of the taxpayer that any collection action be no more intrusive

than necessary. See sec. 6320(c); see also Lunsford v. Commissioner, 117 T.C.

183, 184 (2001); Diamond v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2012-90, slip op. at 6-7.

      As part of the duty to verify that the requirements of any applicable law or

administrative procedure have been met, the settlement officer must verify that the

IRS made a valid assessment. See secs. 6320(c), 6330(c)(1); Hoyle v.

Commissioner, 131 T.C. 197, 202-203 (2008). An assessment is not valid unless

it is duly preceded by the mailing of a notice of deficiency to the taxpayer’s last

known address. Sec. 6213(a). The validity of an assessment turns only on the

mailing of a notice of a deficiency. United States v. Zolla, 724 F.2d 808, 810 (9th

Cir. 1984).

      Respondent asserts that respondent may rely on a presumption of official

regularity to verify that a notice of deficiency was duly mailed to petitioner’s last

known address before assessment. We have held that exact compliance with PS

Form 3877 or equivalent mailing procedures raises a presumption of official

regularity in favor of the Commissioner and is sufficient, absent evidence to the

contrary, to establish that a notice of deficiency was properly mailed. Coleman v.

Commissioner, 94 T.C. 82, 91 (1990); see also Zolla, 724 F.2d at 810.
                                        - 16 -

[*16] For tax years 2001 and 2003-2005 petitioner received mail at his

Wanamingo Drive address. The settlement officer reviewed the IRS certified

mailing lists and copies of the notices of deficiency to determine that the notices

were correctly mailed to petitioner’s last known address. The certified mailing

lists showed that the notices were mailed by certified mail to petitioner’s

Wanamingo Drive address. The certified mailing lists bear a stamp and signature

from the IRS office in Ogden, Utah, and the same date and tracking number as the

corresponding notices of deficiency. The copies of the notices of deficiency also

show petitioner’s correct address. Respondent is entitled to a presumption of

mailing absent evidence to the contrary. See Campbell v. Commissioner, T.C.

Memo. 2013-57; Crain v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2012-97.

      Petitioner has not offered any evidence that the addresses to which the

notices of deficiency were mailed were incorrect. Petitioner has offered only his

own self-serving testimony that he did not receive the notices. See Campbell v.

Commissioner, at *9 (“A taxpayer’s self-serving testimony that he did not receive

the notice of deficiency, standing alone, is generally insufficient to rebut the

presumption.”). For tax years 2001 and 2003-2005 we find that the settlement

officer did not abuse her discretion by determining that the notices of deficiency

were duly mailed to petitioner’s last known address.
                                        - 17 -

[*17] Petitioner contends that the settlement officer abused her discretion because

she did not provide him with a face-to-face meeting. CDP hearings are informal

and do not require a face-to-face meeting. Katz v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 329,

337 (2000); see also sec. 301.6330-1(d)(2), Q&A-D6, Proced. & Admin. Regs. If

no face-to-face hearing, telephone conference, or any other oral communication

takes place, review of the documents in the case file will constitute the CDP

hearing for purposes of section 6330(b). Rivas v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.

2012-20; sec. 301.6330-1(d)(2), Q&A-D7, Proced. & Admin. Regs.

      The record confirms that petitioner and the settlement officer exchanged a

number of letters concerning petitioner’s tax matters. The settlement officer

informed petitioner that he did not qualify for a face-to-face CDP hearing because

he had not filed income tax returns for 2001 and 2003-2005 and had not provided

the requisite financial documentation for consideration of collection alternatives.

After petitioner failed to file his returns, submit any of the requested documents,

or call the settlement officer for a telephone CDP hearing, the settlement officer

reviewed his file and determined that the filed NFTL and the proposed levies

should be sustained. We find that petitioner was provided a CDP hearing which

complied with all applicable requirements and that it was not an abuse of

discretion for the settlement officer to deny his request for a face-to-face hearing.
                                        - 18 -

[*18] Petitioner argues that his CDP hearings were not fair and impartial. Section

6330(b)(3) provides that “[t]he hearing under this subsection shall be conducted

by an officer or employee who has had no prior involvement with respect to the

unpaid tax specified in subsection (a)(3)(A) before the first hearing under this

section or section 6320.” The settlement officer who conducted the first and

second CDP hearings had no prior involvement in petitioner’s tax matters for the

tax years in issue. She also complied with the requirements of section 6330(c)(3).

We find that petitioner received a fair and impartial CDP hearing.

      Petitioner asserts that the settlement officer did not provide petitioner with

any admissible evidence to support her determination. Section 6330(c)(1) does

not require the settlement officer to rely on any particular document in satisfying

the verification requirement and does not require that the Appeals officer actually

give the taxpayer a copy of the verification upon which she relied. Craig v.

Commissioner, 119 T.C. 252, 262 (2002).

      Petitioner has failed to establish that the settlement officer did not properly

determine that the requirements of any applicable law or administrative procedure

had been met. We find that the settlement officer properly based her

determination on the required factors. The settlement officer (1) verified that all

legal and procedural requirements had been met, (2) considered the issues
                                        - 19 -

[*19] petitioner raised, and (3) determined that the proposed collection action

appropriately balanced the need for the efficient collection of taxes with the

legitimate concern of petitioner that the collection be no more intrusive than

necessary. The settlement officer’s determination to allow collection of

petitioner’s income tax liabilities for tax years 2001 and 2003-2005 to proceed

was not an abuse of discretion. We sustain the filed NFTL and respondent’s

proposed levy on petitioner’s property.

      B.     Second Notice of Determination

      Respondent’s second notice of determination sustained the filing of an

NFTL regarding petitioner’s 2007-2009 income tax liabilities. Petitioner argues

that the settlement officer did not properly verify that the notices of deficiency

were duly mailed before the assessments of tax. Specifically, petitioner asserts

that the settlement officer abused her discretion because the address on the IRS

certified mailing list that he reviewed is wrong.

      On March 20, 2012, respondent purportedly mailed to petitioner a notice of

deficiency for tax years 2007-2009 at his Goose Bay Road address. In the notice

of determination the settlement officer noted that “Appeals has review[ed] the

[IRS] [c]ertified mailing list to confirm” that the notice of deficiency for tax years

2007-2009 was sent by certified mail to petitioner’s last known address. The IRS
                                        - 20 -

[*20] certified mailing list incorrectly lists petitioner’s address as 425 Knik Goose

Bay Road. The defective IRS certified mailing list does not therefore entitle

respondent to a presumption of mailing. See Crain v. Commissioner, slip op. at

13.

      Respondent argues that a typographical error should not invalidate the

assessment. Respondent contends that the IRS generally issues notices in

windowed envelopes so that the address on a notice of deficiency is the address

where the USPS would attempt to deliver the notice. Specifically, an IRS field

internal revenue agent group manager for Alaska and Tacoma, Washington,

testified that “the window on the envelope is designed to fit where the address

comes out on specific letters or on specific reports so that nobody has to retype an

envelope.”

      At a CDP hearing, however, the settlement officer “shall” verify that the

requirements of all applicable law and administrative procedure have been

followed. Sec. 6330(c)(1). One requirement of applicable law is the mandate of

section 6213(a) that a notice of deficiency be duly mailed to the taxpayer’s last

known address before a deficiency may be assessed. If the Commissioner has not

mailed a notice of deficiency, no collection of an assessment of the deficiency may
                                        - 21 -

[*21] proceed. Hoyle v. Commissioner, 131 T.C. at 199 (citing Freije v.

Commissioner, 125 T.C. 14, 36-37 (2005)).

      The settlement officer relied solely on the IRS certified mailing list to

determine whether the notice was sent to petitioner’s last known address. There is

no evidence that the settlement officer reviewed any other documentation or

information to verify the validity of the assessments. The address on the certified

mailing list is wrong. It is therefore unclear whether a notice was sent to

petitioner’s Goose Bay Road address. The incorrect address was also included in

the IRS case activity report and several other places in the record, including the

notices of determination. If the settlement officer had reviewed a copy of the

notice of deficiency, she might have noticed the address discrepancy. The

settlement officer incorrectly determined that a notice of deficiency for tax years

2007-2009 was sent to petitioner’s last known address before the assessment. The

settlement officer’s determination to proceed with the collection of petitioner’s tax

liabilities for those years therefore was an abuse of discretion. The filed NFTL for

2007-2009 is not sustained.
                                      - 22 -

[*22] Any contention we have not addressed is irrelevant, moot, or meritless.

      To reflect the foregoing,


                                               An appropriate decision will be

                                      entered.
