- 8 -
Appeals Office hearing only if the person did not receive a
notice of deficiency for the taxes 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.
Petitioners challenge the assessments entered against them
on the ground that the notices of deficiency for 1996 and 1997
are invalid. However, the record shows that petitioners received
the notices of deficiency and disregarded the opportunity to file
a petition for redetermination with the Court. It follows that
section 6330(c)(2)(B) bars petitioners from challenging the
existence or amount of their underlying tax liabilities for 1996
and 1997 in this collection review proceeding.
Even if petitioners were permitted to challenge the validity
of the notices of deficiency, petitioners’ argument that the
notices are invalid because respondent’s Service Center director
is not properly authorized to issue notices of deficiency is
frivolous and groundless. See Nestor v. Commissioner, 118 T.C.
162 (2002); Smeton v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-140; Coleman
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-132. As the Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit has remarked: “We perceive no need to
refute these arguments with somber reasoning and copious citation
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011