- 7 - Notices of Deficiency,3 so the validity of the underlying tax liabilities for 1996 and 1997 was not properly at issue in the administrative hearing, and is not at issue here. With respect to his 1995 tax liability, which petitioner reported but did not pay, he has not argued or shown that the amount reported by him is in error. Accordingly we review here whether respondent’s administrative determination to proceed with collection is an abuse of discretion. Sec. 6330(c)(2)(B); Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000). At his administrative hearing, petitioner disputed 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 also questioned whether respondent met various statutory requirements which petitioner contended were a prerequisite to collection. Petitioner contends that the forms used by respondent were improper and did not constitute notice and demand. Petitioner also contends that the lack of personal verification by the Secretary or a person shown to be authorized to exercise the Secretary’s authority was a flaw that should preclude respondent from proceeding with collection. At the Appeals hearing, petitioner was provided with transcripts of his accounts, which included detailed information 3 Petitioner acknowledged receipt of the notices.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011