- 3 -
On May 11, 2000, respondent issued a notice of determination
to petitioner. The notice concluded: (1) All procedural,
administrative, and statutory requirements were met;
(2) petitioner failed to attend the scheduled hearing;
(3) petitioner failed to present any collection alternatives; and
(4) the proposed levy was justified. The Appeals officer
sustained the proposed levy on the basis of his review of a
computer transcript of respondent’s records. The Appeals officer
did not consider a Form 4340, Certificate of Assessments,
Payments, and Other Specified Matters.
On June 5, 2000, petitioner filed a timely petition with
this Court. On December 4, 2000, counsel for respondent provided
petitioner with a copy of a Form 4340 dated October 3, 2000.
OPINION
In a section 6330(d) appeal, where the validity of the
underlying tax liability is properly at issue, the Court will
review the liability de novo. Where the underlying liability is
not at issue, the Court will review the Commissioner’s
administrative determination for abuse of discretion. Sego v.
Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000). The validity of the
underlying tax liability is not at issue in this case;
consequently, we review respondent’s actions under the abuse of
discretion standard.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011