- 8 -
not receive a notice of deficiency or did not otherwise have an
earlier opportunity to dispute such tax liability. Goza v.
Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 180-181 (2000); see Sego v.
Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 609 (2000). Section 6330(d) provides
for judicial review of the administrative determination in the
Tax Court or Federal District Court.
Respondent asserts that there is no dispute as to a material
fact and respondent is entitled to judgment as a matter of law
because section 6330(c)(2)(B) bars petitioner from challenging
the existence or amount of his underlying tax liability for 1993
in this proceeding. Respondent further asserts that petitioner
has not raised a valid issue for review; i.e., a spousal defense,
a challenge to the appropriateness of the collection action, or
an alternative means of collection.
The record in this proceeding shows that respondent issued a
notice of deficiency to petitioner for 1993 disallowing the flow-
through loss claimed by him in respect of the S corporation. The
record also shows that although petitioner promptly received the
notice of deficiency, he did not file a petition for
redetermination with the Court challenging the notice. Under
such circumstances, section 6330(c)(2)(B) plainly states that
petitioner is barred from challenging the existence or amount of
his tax liability for 1993 in this proceeding. See Goza v.
Commissioner, supra at 182-183; see also Sego v. Commissioner,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011