- 11 -
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 only 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, supra. Section 6330(d) provides for
judicial review of the administrative determination in the Tax
Court or a Federal District Court, as may be appropriate.
A. Summary Judgment
Petitioners challenge the assessments made against them on
the ground that the notice of deficiency dated March 27, 1996, 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
liabilities in this collection review proceeding.4
4 As previously discussed, on Feb. 12, 1996, respondent
entered assessments for taxes and additions to tax under secs.
6651(a)(1) and 6654 based upon the taxes that petitioners
reported due in their late-filed original returns. Inasmuch as
the underlying taxes were “self-assessed”, these items were not
subject to redetermination under the Court’s normal deficiency
jurisdiction. See secs. 6201(a)(1), 6211(a)(1), 6665(b).
Although it is arguable whether sec. 6330(c)(2)(B) barred
petitioners from challenging these particular assessments,
petitioners did not specifically dispute these items. Moreover,
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011