Carlin and Joyce A. Bartschi - Page 7




                                         -7-                                          
          person’s property, the Secretary must provide the person with a             
          final notice of intent to levy, including notice of the                     
          administrative appeals available to the person.                             
               Section 6330 generally provides that the Commissioner cannot           
          proceed with collection by levy until the person has been given             
          notice and the opportunity for an administrative review of the              
          matter (in the form of a hearing before Appeals) and, if                    
          dissatisfied, with judicial review of the administrative                    
          determination.  Davis v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 35, 37 (2000);              
          Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 179 (2000).  In the event of            
          such a judicial review, the Court’s standard of review depends on           
          whether the underlying tax liability is at issue.  The Court                
          reviews a taxpayer’s liability under the de novo standard where             
          the validity of the underlying tax liability is at issue.  The              
          Court reviews other administrative determinations for abuse of              
          discretion.  Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000).  A             
          taxpayer’s underlying tax liability may be at issue if he or she            
          “did not receive any statutory notice of deficiency for such tax            
          liability or did not otherwise have an opportunity to dispute               
          such tax liability.”  Sec. 6330(c)(2)(B).                                   
               Petitioners assert in their petition two allegations of                
          error in the Appeals officer’s determination.3  First,                      

               3 Petitioners attempted to raise in their response to                  
          respondent’s motion for summary judgment new issues as to the               
                                                             (continued...)           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011