Opinion ID: 2783088
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Gyorgy’s Underlying Tax Liability

Text: Because Gyorgy did not receive the deficiency notices at issue, he had a right to contest his underlying tax liability in his CDP hearing. See I.R.C. § 6330(c)(2)(B). He also had a right to de novo review of that issue in tax court. See Goza, 114 T.C. at 181-82. The tax court acknowledged that right and gave Gyorgy a bench trial. We normally assess de novo the tax court’s legal conclusions after trial, and we review its factual findings and its applications of law to fact for clear error. Kikalos v. Comm’r, 434 F.3d 977, 981-82 (7th Cir. 2006). But here there is nothing for us to review. Gyorgy presented no arguments and no evidence before the tax court to challenge the IRS’s calculation of the taxes and penalties he owes. He presented nothing before the Appeals Office either. 11 After finding that the Commissioner made an 11 By not presenting any challenge to his liability in the CDP hearing, Gyorgy arguably waived his right to do so in tax court. Treasury Regulation § 301.6330-1(f)(2), A-F3 provides that “the taxpayer can only ask the court to consider an issue, including a challenge to the (continued…) 28 No. 13-3363 adequate showing and noting the absence of any challenge from Gyorgy, the tax court upheld the IRS’s determination of his liabilities for 2002 and 2003. On appeal, Gyorgy does not identify any alleged error in the tax court’s decision; he has therefore waived any challenge to his tax liability. See United States v. Bryant, 750 F.3d 642, 651 (7th Cir. 2014) (“Failure to develop an argument on appeal results in waiver….”); Mahaffey v. Ramos, 588 F.3d 1142, 1146 (7th Cir. 2009) (“Perfunctory, undeveloped arguments without discussion or citation to pertinent legal authority are waived.”).