- 3 -
Hearing. The levy related to his unpaid liability for income tax
assessments for 1993, 1994, and 1995. Petitioner requested and
was granted a collection due process hearing which was held on
May 12, 2000. Other than objecting that the Form 4340,
Certificate of Assessment and Payments, was not a proper basis to
verify the assessments petitioner raised no other arguments and
offered no collection alternatives. On May 19, 2000, respondent
sent a “NOTICE OF DETERMINATION CONCERNING COLLECTION ACTION(S)
UNDER SECTION 6320 AND/OR 6330” to petitioner (notice of
determination). The notice of determination states: “The
Collection enforcement action proposed is the appropriate action
in this case.”
Petitioner timely filed a petition seeking judicial review
of that determination. Where the validity of the underlying tax
liability is properly at issue, the Court will review the matter
de novo. Where, as is here, the underlying liability is not at
issue, the Court will review the Commissioner's administrative
determination for abuse of discretion. See Sego v. Commissioner,
114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000).
Petitioner alleges in the petition that respondent made the
following errors in making his determination:
(a) The appeals officer failed to get proper
verification from the Secretary that the service met
the requirements of any applicable law or
administrative procedure as required by �6330(c)(1), 26
CFR �301.6320-T(e)(1)[sic] and 26 CFR �301.6330-
T(e)(1)[sic].
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011