- 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