- 8 -
provides that a person may raise collection issues such as
spousal defenses, the appropriateness of the Commissioner's
intended collection action, and possible alternative means of
collection. Section 6330(c)(2)(B) provides that the existence
and amount of the underlying tax liability can be contested at an
Appeals Office hearing if the person did not receive a notice of
deficiency for the taxes in question or did not otherwise have an
earlier opportunity to dispute the tax liability. See Sego v.
Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 609 (2000); Goza v. Commissioner, 114
T.C. 176, 179 (2000). Section 6330(d) provides for judicial
review of the administrative determination in the Tax Court or a
Federal District Court, as may be appropriate.
B. Summary Judgment
Petitioners challenge the assessments made against them on
the ground that the notice of deficiency dated May 26, 2000, is
invalid. However, the record shows that petitioners received the
notice of deficiency and disregarded the opportunity to file a
petition for redetermination with this Court. See sec. 6213(a).
It follows that section 6330(c)(2)(B) generally bars petitioners
from challenging the existence or amount of their underlying tax
liability in this collection review proceeding.
Even if petitioners were permitted to challenge the validity
of the notice of deficiency, petitioners’ arguments have no
merit. See Nestor v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 162, 165 (2002);
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011