- 14 -
trial the parties agreed to submit this case fully stipulated
under Rule 122.
Discussion
A. Standard of Review
To determine the correct standard of review in a case
instituted under sections 6320 and 6330, the Court must first
decide whether petitioner’s underlying tax liability is properly
at issue. Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000); Goza
v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 181-182 (2000). The term
“underlying tax liability” under section 6330(c)(2)(B) includes
amounts self-assessed under section 6201(a), together with
penalties and interest. Sec. 6201(a)(1); Montgomery v.
Commissioner, 122 T.C. 1, 9 (2004); sec. 301.6203-1, Proced. &
Admin. Regs.
The amount of the underlying tax liability may be placed at
issue if the taxpayer did not receive a statutory notice of
deficiency or otherwise have an opportunity to dispute the tax
liability. Sec. 6330(c)(2)(B); see Behling v. Commissioner, 118
T.C. 572, 576-577 (2002). In this case, petitioner was not
issued a notice of deficiency and did not have a prior
opportunity to dispute his tax liabilities for 2000 and 2001.
Therefore, the proper standard of review for the arguments
challenging the underlying tax liability is de novo. Sego v.
Commissioner, supra at 609-610.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011