- 7 -
opportunities for a hearing nor respond to the Appeals officer’s
telephone call regarding the second rescheduling of the hearing.
II. Underlying Liability
Although section 6330 does not prescribe the standard of
review that the Court is to apply in reviewing the Commissioner’s
administrative determinations, we have stated that, where the
validity of the underlying tax liability is properly at issue,
the Court will review the matter on a de novo basis. Where the
validity of the underlying tax liability is not properly at
issue, however, the Court will review the Commissioner’s
administrative determination for abuse of discretion. Sego v.
Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000); Goza v. Commissioner, 114
T.C. 176, 181 (2000).
In her request for a hearing, petitioner only argued issues
that involved the underlying tax liability: Filing status,
exemptions, and EIC. Petitioner cannot dispute the existence or
the amount of the underlying tax liability because petitioner
received a notice of deficiency. Sec. 6330(c)(2)(B).
Additionally, petitioner did not assert in the petition any
spousal defenses, any challenges to the appropriateness of the
collection actions, or any offers of collection alternatives.
See sec. 6330(c)(2)(A). There is no basis in the record for the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011