- 9 - liability is properly at issue, the Court reviews any determination regarding the underlying tax liability de novo. Sego v. Commissioner, supra at 610; Goza v. Commissioner, supra at 181-182. The Court reviews other administrative determinations regarding the proposed levy action for abuse of discretion. Sego v. Commissioner, supra. Petitioner makes no claim that the Appeals officer failed to obtain verification that the requirements of any applicable law or administrative procedure have been met. See sec. 6330(c)(1). Instead, petitioner’s challenge to respondent’s determination raises issues almost exclusively related to the existence of his 1997 Federal income tax liability. See sec. 6330(c)(2)(B).2 Although a notice of deficiency was issued to petitioner for 1997, respondent concedes that petitioner did not receive that notice. Consequently, respondent does not dispute petitioner’s right to challenge the existence or the amount of his 1997 Federal income tax liability in this proceeding. After careful consideration of the evidence presented in this proceeding, we find that petitioner has failed to establish 2 Sec. 6330(c)(2)(B) provides: (B) Underlying liability.--The person may also raise at the hearing challenges to the existence or amount of the underlying tax liability for any tax period if the person did not receive any statutory notice of deficiency for such tax liability or did not otherwise have an opportunity to dispute such tax liability.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011