MEMORANDUM OPINION
LARO, Judge: Petitioner petitioned the Court under
Background
Petitioner won the lottery in 1997. In 1998, she sold for $ 1,705,000 a portion of her*83 interest in the future lottery payments and reported the sales price as capital gains income on her 1998 Federal income tax return. Following an audit, respondent determined that this amount was taxable as gambling income at ordinary income tax rates. A notice of deficiency reflecting this determination was issued on March 19, 2002. Petitioner did not petition this Court with respect to the notice.
On August 5, 2002, petitioner's tax liability was assessed as determined in the notice of deficiency. When she failed to pay the amount due, respondent issued a notice of intent to levy on February 7, 2003. She timely requested a
Discussion
Summary judgment may be granted with respect to any part of the legal issues in controversy if the records before the Court "show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that a decision may be rendered as a matter of law."
Petitioner raises no valid legal arguments. She alleges in her petition that respondent erred in not letting her argue to Appeals that the subject income was properly reported and taxed as capital gains income. Her argument is mistaken. Petitioner, having received a notice of deficiency and having forgone the opportunity to challenge her underlying liability, is barred from doing so during a
*86 To reflect the foregoing,
An appropriate order and decision will be entered for respondent.
Footnotes
1. Unless otherwise noted, section references are to the applicable versions of the Internal Revenue Code. Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.↩
2. We say "approximately" as these amounts were computed before the present proceeding and have since increased on account of interest.↩
3. Petitioner does not argue that she did not receive the notice of deficiency. She does appear to argue she had a right to a hearing with Appeals before the notice of deficiency was issued, and that respondent's failure to conduct such a hearing invalidates the notice of deficiency. We know of no such right under the minimal standards for notices of deficiency and hold that the notice is valid. See
Abrams v. Commissioner, 84 T.C. 1308">84 T.C. 1308 (1985), affd.814 F.2d 1356">814 F.2d 1356 (9th Cir. 1987), affd.787 F.2d 939">787 F.2d 939 (4th Cir. 1986), affd. sub nom.Donley v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 383">791 F.2d 383 (5th Cir. 1986), affd. sub nom.Gaska v. Commissioner, 800 F.2d 633">800 F.2d 633 (6th Cir. 1986), affd. without published opinion sub nom.Becker v. Commissioner, 799 F.2d 753">799 F.2d 753 (7th Cir. 1986), affd. sub nom.Spector v. Commissioner, 790 F.2d 51">790 F.2d 51 (8th Cir. 1986), affd. sub nom.Alford v. Commissioner, 800 F.2d 987">800 F.2d 987 (10th Cir. 1986), affd. sub nom.Benzvi v. Commissioner, 787 F.2d 1541">787 F.2d 1541↩ (11th Cir. 1986).