David E. and Susana V. Judd - Page 11
Legal Research Home >
US Tax Court > 2005 > David E. and Susana V. Judd - Page 11
- 10 -
6330(c)(2)(B), petitioners were entitled to challenge the
existence or amount of the underlying tax liabilities for 1996 at
their Appeals Office hearing. If the validity of those
underlying tax liabilities is properly at issue, the Court
reviews the matter de novo. Poindexter v. Commissioner, 122 T.C.
280, 284 (2004); Sego v. Commissioner, supra at 610.
Petitioners did not address their 1996 tax liability in the
hearing or at trial and have failed to aver or prove facts
sufficient to show error in the assessments. Where, as is the
case here, the validity of the underlying tax liability is not
properly placed at issue, the Court will review the
administrative determination of the Appeals Office for abuse of
discretion. Sego v. Commissioner, supra at 610; Goza v.
Commissioner, supra at 181-183. The Court reviews only whether
the Appeals officer’s decision to sustain the proposed levy was
arbitrary, capricious, or without sound basis in fact or law.
See Woodral v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 19, 23 (1999).
During the hearing, petitioners did not challenge the amount
of their underlying 1996 tax liability. They were ineligible for
an installment agreement because they were not current in their
tax obligations and estimated tax payments. Petitioners declined
to give Ms. Glover any financial information with which she could
determine the appropriateness of any other collection
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011