- 6 -
tax, the Court dismissed the petition for failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted.
In the instant case, the record indicates that, following an
Appeals Office hearing, respondent determined that he would
proceed with collection against petitioner as to taxes due for
1991, and he would abate the assessments entered against
petitioner for 1992. Respondent asserts that the assessment for
1991 is based on the return as filed and that the tax, penalty,
and interest due for 1991 is the balance after application of a
credit applied from 1992 to 1991. Petitioner does not dispute
this assertion. Respondent did not issue a notice of deficiency
to petitioner for 1991, a circumstance which normally would
permit petitioner to challenge his underlying tax liability for
1991 in this collection review proceeding.3 As was the case in
Goza v. Commissioner, supra, petitioner failed to raise a spousal
defense or challenge respondent's proposed levy by offering a
less intrusive means for collecting the taxes in either the
Appeals Office hearing or in his petition for review filed with
the Court. Sec. 6330(c)(2)(A). Moreover, as indicated, the
3 Petitioner failed to assert a valid claim for relief.
See Landry v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 60 (2001), holding that the
Court had jurisdiction in a collection review proceeding,
regardless of whether a deficiency was determined, where the
underlying liability related to Federal income tax. Given the
nature of petitioner’s frivolous claims, we conclude that
petitioner failed to assert a valid claim for relief as to the
underlying liability.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011