- 7 -
6330, and that this also denied him the right to record the
section 6330 hearing.
The only issues that petitioner would raise, or would have
raised, if provided a face-to-face section 6330 hearing are
frivolous and groundless issues and arguments--e.g., that the
Commissioner had no authority to assess tax, that there is no
definition of an income tax or income, that there is no provision
in the Internal Revenue Code that makes him liable to pay taxes
or file returns, and that he wanted Settlement Officer Feist to
show him where in the Internal Revenue Code it provides that he
(petitioner) is liable to file returns--and he wanted to dispute
the amount of his underlying tax liability.3
OPINION
When the Commissioner issues a determination regarding a
disputed collection action, section 6330(d) permits a taxpayer to
seek judicial review with the Tax Court or a U.S. District Court,
as is appropriate. If the underlying tax liability is properly
at issue, we review that issue de novo. Sego v. Commissioner,
114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000); Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 181
(2000). If the validity of the underlying tax liability is not
at issue, we review the Commissioner’s determination for abuse of
discretion. Sego v. Commissioner, supra at 610.
3 We note that until trial, and initially at trial,
petitioner refused to state what issues he would raise, or would
have raised, at a face-to-face sec. 6330 hearing.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011