- 6 -
Although section 6330 does not prescribe the standard of
review that the Court is to apply in reviewing the Commissioner’s
administrative determinations, we have stated that, where the
validity of the underlying tax liability is properly at issue,
the Court will review the matter on a de novo basis. Where the
validity of the underlying tax liability is not properly at
issue, however, the Court will review the Commissioner’s
administrative determination for abuse of discretion. Sego v.
Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000); Goza v. Commissioner, 114
T.C. 176, 181 (2000).
We review respondent’s determination to proceed with the
levy action on an abuse of discretion basis because the validity
of the underlying tax liability is not properly at issue. At the
hearing and in his petition, petitioner raised several arguments
regarding the conduct of his audit and the amount of the
liability. Petitioner could not dispute the existence or the
amount of the underlying tax liability at the hearing because
petitioner received a notice of deficiency and did have the
opportunity to dispute such liability which resulted in the
stipulated decision.5 See sec. 6330(c)(2)(B).
In addition, petitioner did not assert in the petition any
5 The doctrine of res judicata, which applies to a
stipulated decision, precludes relitigation of the issues
involved in that tax litigation. Cincinnati Transit Inc. v.
Commissioner, 55 T.C. 879, 883 (1971), affd. 455 F.2d 220 (6th
Cir. 1972); Krueger v. Commissioner, 48 T.C. 824, 829 (1967);
Hamdan v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-19.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011