Lauren C. Jackson - Page 6




                                        - 6 -                                         
               Under the circumstances, section 6330(c)(2)(B) bars                    
          petitioner from challenging the existence or the amount of her              
          underlying tax liability for 1996 in this collection review                 
          proceeding.  See Goza v. Commissioner, supra.                               
               Petitioner has failed to raise a spousal defense, make a               
          valid challenge to the appropriateness of respondent’s intended             
          collection action, or offer alternative means of collection.                
          These issues are now deemed conceded.  Rule 331(b)(4).  In the              
          absence of a justiciable issue for review, we conclude that                 
          petitioner has failed to state a claim for relief, and we shall             
          therefore grant respondent’s motion to dismiss.                             
               Finally, we mention section 6673(a)(1).  That section                  
          authorizes the Tax Court to require a taxpayer to pay to the                
          United States a penalty not in excess of $25,000 whenever it                
          appears that proceedings have been instituted or maintained by              
          the taxpayer primarily for delay or that the taxpayer's position            
          in such proceeding is frivolous or groundless.  The Court has               
          indicated its willingness to impose such penalties in collection            
          review cases.  Pierson v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 576 (2000);                
          Yacksyzn v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-99 (imposing a penalty            
          in the amount of $1,000); Watson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.                
          2001-213 (imposing a penalty in the amount of $1,500).                      
               In the present case, petitioner did not challenge the                  
          constitutionality of the Federal income tax or make the type of             






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011