- 12 -
Of course, there may be cases, where taxpayers were not
given a proper opportunity for an Appeals hearing, where it will
be appropriate for this Court to require that an Appeals hearing
be held. However, we do not believe that this should be done
where, as in this case, the only arguments that petitioners
presented to this Court were based on legal propositions which we
have previously rejected.
Procedurally, the case before us is similar to the situation
we faced in Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176 (2000). In that
case the taxpayer objected to the notice of intent to levy, and
the case was sent to Appeals for a determination under section
6330. Appeals refused to hear the taxpayer’s challenge to the
underlying tax liability or to hear the taxpayer’s challenges
based on frivolous constitutional arguments. The Appeals notice
of determination stated:
Summary of Determination:
It has been determined that the requirements of all
applicable laws and administrative procedures have been
met.
As you were advised in our letter dated July 6, 1999,
challenges to the underlying liability may only be
raised as an issue if you did not receive a statutory
notice of deficiency or did not otherwise have an
opportunity to dispute the liability. You did receive
a statutory notice of deficiency in this case. You
were also informed that a hearing is not available for
constitutional issues such as those referenced in your
reply to the final notice, and you failed to raise any
issues that could be considered in a due process
hearing pursuant to IRC section 6330.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011