- 4 -
Secretary that the requirements of any applicable law or
administrative procedure have been met.”
Section 6330(d) provides for Tax Court review of the
Commissioner’s administrative determination. Where the validity
of the underlying liability is properly at issue, the Court will
review the matter de novo. Davis v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 35,
39 (2000). In cases where the validity of the liability is not
properly part of the appeal, the Court reviews the Commissioner’s
administrative determination for abuse of discretion. See id.;
see also Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 181-182 (2000).
Petitioners do not dispute the underlying liabilities, or
the adequacy of the scheduled hearing, but contend that section
6330(c)(1) requires the production of Form 23 C. This Court
previously has addressed such a contention, holding that “it was
not an abuse of discretion for Appeals to rely on a Form 4340
* * * for the purpose of complying with section 6330(c)(1).”
Davis v. Commissioner, supra at 41. Accordingly, respondent’s
administrative determination was not an abuse of discretion.
Respondent contends that petitioners’ position is frivolous
and instituted primarily for delay and that, pursuant to section
6673(a)(1), the Court should impose a penalty on them. We
conclude, however, that it is not appropriate to impose such a
penalty in this case.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011