Steven John Rennie - Page 7




                                        - 7 -                                         
          unnecessary and expensive trials.  Fla. Peach Corp. v.                      
          Commissioner, 90 T.C. 678, 681 (1988).                                      
               There is no genuine issue as to any material fact in this              
          case.  Respondent, pursuant to section 6331(a), was seeking to              
          levy on petitioner’s property.  In accord with sections 6330(a)             
          and 6331(d), respondent provided petitioner with a final notice             
          of intent to levy, which also included notice of petitioner’s               
          right to an administrative appeal of respondent’s decision to               
          collect the tax.  In that regard, the Commissioner cannot collect           
          by levy without the opportunity for a taxpayer to seek an                   
          administrative review of the determination to proceed with                  
          collection and/or the opportunity for judicial review of the                
          administrative determination.  Davis v. Commissioner, 115 T.C.              
          35, 37 (2000).                                                              
               Petitioner opted for an administrative appeal, and after               
          respondent’s decision to go forward with collection, he sought              
          review by this Court.  Petitioner did not file a petition upon              
          the issuance of the notice of deficiency, so he is afforded                 
          review solely on the question of abuse of respondent’s discretion           
          because the validity of the underlying liability is not at issue.           
          Sec. 6330(c)(2)(B); Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610                 
          (2000).                                                                     
               Because petitioner is not entitled to question the                     
          underlying tax liability, his administrative hearing is limited             






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011