Danney R. Land - Page 12




                                       - 12 -                                         
          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 only if the person did not receive a                 
          notice of deficiency for the tax 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                                                   
               Petitioner challenges the assessment made against him on the           
          ground that the notice of deficiency dated August 11, 2000, is              
          invalid.  However, the record conclusively shows that petitioner            
          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) bars petitioner             
          from challenging the existence or amount of his underlying tax              
          liability in this collection review proceeding.  See Nestor v.              
          Commissioner, 118 T.C. 162, 165-166 (2002).                                 
               Even if petitioner were permitted to challenge the validity            
          of the notice of deficiency, petitioner’s argument that the                 
          notice is invalid because respondent’s Service Center director is           






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011