- 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 hasPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011