- 7 -
hearing unless the taxpayer did not receive a notice of
deficiency for the taxes in question or did not otherwise have an
earlier opportunity to dispute such tax liability. The taxpayer
in Goza had received a notice of deficiency, yet failed to file a
petition for redetermination with the Court. When the taxpayer
subsequently attempted to use the Court's collection review
procedure as a forum to assert frivolous and groundless
constitutional arguments against the Federal income tax, the
Court dismissed the petition for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted.
As was the case in Goza v. Commissioner, supra, we are
satisfied that petitioner received a notice of deficiency, failed
to file a petition for redetermination with the Court, and has
attempted to contest his liability in this collection review
proceeding by raising frivolous and groundless arguments that he
is not liable for Federal income tax. Under the circumstances,
section 6330(c)(2)(B) clearly provides that petitioner was barred
from contesting the existence or amount of his tax liability
before the Appeals Office. Petitioner failed to raise a spousal
defense or challenge respondent's proposed levy by offering a
less intrusive means for collecting his tax liability in either
the Appeals Office hearing or in his petition for review filed
with the Court. See sec. 6330(c)(2)(A). These issues are now
deemed conceded. See Rule 331(b)(4). In the absence of a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011