Stuart M. Smith, Jr. - Page 5




                                         -5-                                          
               Section 6330 generally provides that the Commissioner cannot           
          proceed with collection by levy until the person has been given             
          notice and the opportunity for an administrative review of the              
          matter (in the form of an Appeals Office hearing) and, if                   
          dissatisfied, with judicial review of the administrative                    
          determination.  Davis v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 35, 37 (2000);              
          Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 179 (2000).  In the case of             
          such judicial review, the Court will review a taxpayer’s                    
          liability de novo where the validity of the underlying tax                  
          liability is at issue.  The Court will review the Commissioner’s            
          administrative determination for abuse of discretion in all other           
          cases.  Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000).  A                  
          taxpayer may challenge “the existence or amount of the underlying           
          tax liability for any tax period if the * * * [taxpayer] did not            
          receive any statutory notice of deficiency for such tax liability           
          or did not otherwise have an opportunity to dispute such tax                
          liability.”  Sec. 6330(c)(2)(B); Smith v. Commissioner, T.C.                
          Memo. 2002-59.                                                              
               Petitioner’s only allegation in his petition is that                   
          respondent failed to send the statutory notice of deficiency for            
          19853 to petitioner’s “last known address.”  If petitioner did              

               3 Even though a notice of determination was issued to                  
          petitioner for 1985 and 1986, we conclude that petitioner’s                 
          allegation pertains solely to 1985; petitioner not only received            
          a notice of deficiency for 1986, but he petitioned the Court with           
                                                             (continued...)           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011