- 7 -
opportunity to dispute such tax liability.
[Emphasis added.]
Petitioner does not allege that he did not receive a notice of
deficiency for the tax liabilities in issue, nor does he allege
that he did not have an opportunity to contest the deficiency
determinations. Because petitioner failed to aver the facts
specified in section 6330(c)(2)(B), which are required to put the
underlying tax liability in issue, petitioner’s underlying tax
liability is not properly before the Court. See Goza v.
Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176 (2000).
Where, as in this case, the underlying liability is not in
issue, the Court will review the Commissioner’s administrative
determination for abuse of discretion. See Sego v. Commissioner,
114 T.C. ___ (2000); Goza v. Commissioner, supra at 181-182.
The only error alleged in the petition was stated in
paragraph 5 as follows:
The appeals officer failed to properly verify that the
service followed the requirements of any applicable law
or administrative procedure as required by 26 CFR
�301.6320-T(e)(1).
The facts upon which petitioner relied to support this
alleged error are stated in paragraph 6 of the petition as
follows:
The appeals officer took the position that the
assessment is valid without verifying that there was in
fact an assessment. Form 4340 was all that the appeals
officer claimed to have relied upon without verifying
that it was accurate or that it was in fact signed by
an assessment officer. The Form 4340 listed a 23C date
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011