- 13 -
that Rule 155 computations would be necessary. We will therefore
order Rule 155 computations in both the section 6330 cases and
the deficiency case. See Sponberg v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
2002-177.
1. Judicial Review and Burden of Proof
If the taxpayers in a section 6330 case did not receive a
notice of deficiency or otherwise have an opportunity to dispute
the tax liability, the Court reviews the underlying tax liability
de novo; the Court reviews for abuse of discretion the
administrative determination of the IRS Appeals Office to collect
the tax liability. Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610
(2000); Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 181-182 (2000).
We review de novo respondent’s determinations that
petitioners are liable for the section 6654(a) and 6651(a)(1) and
(2) additions to tax. See Downing v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 22,
29 (2002); Joye v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-14. If we
should find petitioners are liable for those additions to tax, we
would review for abuse of discretion respondent’s determinations
to proceed to collect those additions. See Downing v.
Commissioner, supra; Joye v. Commissioner, supra.
Respondent concedes, under section 7491(c), that he bears
the burden of production of coming forward with sufficient
evidence that the additions to tax are appropriate. See Higbee
v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 438, 446-447 (2001); cf. Joye v.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011