- 13 -
of the Commissioner's intended collection action, and possible
alternative means of collection. Section 6330(c)(2)(B) provides
that the existence or the amount of the underlying tax liability
can be contested at an Appeals Office hearing if the person did
not receive a notice of deficiency or did not otherwise have an
earlier opportunity to dispute such tax liability. Goza v.
Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 180-181 (2000); see Sego v.
Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 609 (2000). Section 6330(d) provides
for judicial review of the administrative determination in the
Tax Court or Federal District Court.
A. Summary Judgment
In his petition, petitioner challenges the existence of the
underlying tax liability. Respondent contends that petitioner is
barred under section 6330(c)(2)(B) from challenging the existence
or amount of his underlying tax liability in this collection
review proceeding because petitioner received a notice of
deficiency for the tax in question. Respondent deduces the
factual predicate for this contention from the fact that the
notice of deficiency was mailed to petitioner at his last known
address and from petitioner’s failure to deny receiving the
notice of deficiency. Rather, petitioner only denied receiving a
“valid” notice of deficiency. See Kiley v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 2002-315 (taxpayer’s denial of receiving “valid” notice of
deficiency” did not mean that taxpayer failed to receive notice
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011