- 4 -
notice of deficiency for such tax liability or did not
otherwise have an opportunity to dispute such tax
liability.
The determination of the Appeals officer may be reviewed
judicially if the taxpayer files a timely petition in this Court
or in an appropriate United States District Court. See sec.
6330(d). In Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 181-182 (2000),
we noted that “where the validity of the underlying tax liability
is properly at issue, the Court will review the matter on a de
novo basis. However, where the validity of the underlying tax
liability is not properly at issue, the Court will review the
Commissioner’s administrative determination for abuse of
discretion.”
The constitutionality of the levy provisions has long been
established. See United States v. National Bank of Commerce, 472
U.S. 713, 721 (1985); Davis v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 35, 36
(2000). We assume, therefore, that when petitioner refers to a
denial of a “due process” hearing, she is referring to statutory
rights under section 6330, rather than a constitutional attack on
the levy power.
In the hearing before this Court petitioner alleged that she
was denied “due process” on the grounds that (1) she is not a
taxpayer because “the Internal Revenue laws repealed [the]
National Prohibition Act”; (2) “anything that was called adjusted
gross income is actually the Quam [Guam] income tax” and that
does not apply to petitioner; (3) “the U.S. Internal Revenue
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011