- 13 -
See sec. 6213(a). He thus is barred from challenging the
underlying tax liabilities in this collection proceeding.
Accordingly, his contentions regarding lack of taxable income, as
well as the burden of proof with respect thereto, are not
properly at issue and will not be considered. We therefore
review respondent’s section 6330 determination solely for abuse
of discretion.
III. Review for Abuse of Discretion
In addressing whether the circumstances of this case reveal
any abuse of discretion, we first deal with the allegation in the
petition that respondent “wrongfully ignored issuing a 30 day
appeal to the Petitioner.” To the extent that this statement
might refer to the preliminary 30-day letter and associated
Appeals hearing that, as a matter of administrative practice,
typically precede issuance of a notice of deficiency (or 90-day
letter), any such argument has been repeatedly rejected. See,
e.g., Smith v. United States, 478 F.2d 398, 400 (5th Cir. 1973);
Rosenberg v. Commissioner, 450 F.2d 529, 531-533 (10th Cir.
1971), affg. T.C. Memo. 1970-201; Bromberg v. Ingling, 300 F.2d
859, 861 (9th Cir. 1962); Montgomery v. Commissioner, 65 T.C.
511, 522 (1975); Edwards v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-169.
As this Court recently summarized:
The Internal Revenue Code and the regulations do
not require the Commissioner to send a preliminary 30-
day letter or to hold an administrative Appeals hearing
before issuing a notice of deficiency. A 30-day letter
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011