Rainer B. and Sonja D. Wagner - Page 10

                                       - 10 -                                         
          that the existence and amount of the underlying tax liability can           
          be contested at an 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.  Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 609 (2000);  Goza           
          v. Commissioner, supra at 180.  Section 6330(d) provides for                
          judicial review of the administrative determination in the Tax              
          Court or a Federal District Court, as may be appropriate.                   
          A.  Summary Judgment                                                        
               Petitioners challenge the assessments made against them on             
          the ground that the notice of deficiency dated October 8, 1999,             
          is invalid.  The record, however, establishes that petitioners              
          received the notice of deficiency and did not file a petition for           
          redetermination with this Court.  See sec. 6213(a).  It follows             
          that under section 6330(c)(2)(B) petitioners are barred from                
          challenging the existence or amount of their underlying tax                 
          liability in this collection review proceeding.                             
               Even if petitioners were permitted to challenge the validity           
          of the notice of deficiency, petitioners’ argument that the                 
          notice is 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, 165 (2002); Goza v. Commissioner, supra at 182-183.                    
          Further, as the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has                  

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011