- 14 -
in cases such as this one. The validity of the underlying tax
liability is not properly before the Court.
As indicated above, petitioners’ claims in part are based on
events occurring after the Appeals Office hearing. Matters
raised after a hearing do not reflect on whether the
determinations that are the basis of this petition were an abuse
of discretion. Attacks on the use of statistics to determine
Steven Sego’s income relate to the underlying liability and
cannot be considered for the reasons set forth above. There is
no explanation or challenge in the petition to the
appropriateness or inappropriateness of the intended method of
collection, no offer of an alternative means of collection, and
no spousal defenses. The petition does not assert and there is
no basis in the record for the Court to conclude that respondent
abused his discretion with respect to any of these matters.
The decision in this case will indicate that we sustain
respondent’s administrative determination to proceed with
collection against petitioners. Our decision does not serve as a
review of respondent’s determination as to petitioners’
underlying tax liability for 1993, 1994, or 1995.
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered
for respondent.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Last modified: May 25, 2011