- 6 - Petitioner opted for an administrative appeal and, after respondent’s decision to go forward with collection, sought review by this Court. Petitioner did not file a petition for his 1992 tax year or perfect his petition for his 1997 tax year following respondent’s issuance of the notices of deficiency. Accordingly, petitioner is afforded review by this Court solely on the question of abuse of discretion because the validity of the underlying liabilities is not at issue. Sec. 6330(c)(2)(B); Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000). Because petitioner is not entitled to question the underlying tax liability, his administrative hearing was limited to collection issues, including spousal defenses, the appropriateness of respondent’s intended collection action, and possible alternatives to collection. Petitioner questioned the appropriateness of respondent’s proposed collection action by questioning whether the Appeals officer had satisfied the verification requirement of section 6330(c)(1). Petitioner contends that respondent used incorrect forms for the notice and demand and otherwise failed to meet the requirement because the Secretary did not personally verify the liability. At the administrative Appeals conference, petitioner was provided with a transcript of his tax accounts detailing the information underlying the assessment of the taxes in question. Petitioner does not question whether all of the steps had beenPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011