- 10 -
alleges that “the deficiency notice Petitioner received was
invalid, because it was not sent out by the Secretary as required
by Code Section 6212.” On the instant record, we find that
petitioner may not challenge the existence or the amount of
petitioner’s unpaid liabilities for 1997 and 1998.3 See sec.
6330(c)(2)(B); Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610-611
(2000); Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 182-183 (2000).
Where, as is the case here, the validity of the underlying
tax liabilities is not properly placed at issue, the Court will
review the determination of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue
for abuse of discretion. Sego v. Commissioner, supra at 610;
Goza v. Commissioner, supra at 181-182.
As was true of petitioner’s attachment to his 1997 return,
petitioner’s attachment to his 1998 return, petitioner’s October
30, 2000 letter, and petitioner’s attachment to Form 12153, the
petition contains contentions, arguments, and requests that the
Court finds to be frivolous and/or groundless. To illustrate,
petitioner contends in the petition that respondent failed to
issue petitioner the notice and demand for payment required by
section 6303(a). We reject that contention. Forms 4340 with
respect to petitioner’s taxable years 1997 and 1998 show that
3We note that, pursuant to Rule 37(c), petitioner is deemed
to have admitted that he may not challenge the existence or the
amount of his unpaid liabilities for 1997 and 1998 because he
received a notice of deficiency with respect to those years.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011