- 5 -
petition this Court for redetermination of the deficiency
asserted therein. Sec. 301.6330-1(e)(3), Q&A-E2, Proced. &
Admin. Regs. This implies that section 6330(c)(2)(B)
contemplates actual receipt of the notice of deficiency by the
taxpayer. Id.; Tatum v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-115.2
Once an Appeals officer has issued a determination regarding
the disputed collection action, the taxpayer may seek judicial
review of the determination. Sec. 6330(d)(1). In considering
whether a taxpayer is entitled to any relief from the
Commissioner’s determination, this Court has established the
following standards of review:
where the validity of the underlying tax liability is
properly at issue, the Court will review the matter on a de
novo basis. However, where the validity of the underlying
tax liability is not properly at issue, the Court will
review the Commissioner’s determination for abuse of
discretion.
Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000).
In his petition, petitioner’s arguments addressed only the
underlying tax liabilities. Petitioner, however, did not allege
in the petition that he did not receive the notices of
deficiency. Petitioner’s only argument concerning receipt of the
2An exception is made where a taxpayer deliberately refuses
delivery of a notice of deficiency, in which case the taxpayer
may not contest the underlying tax liability in the hearing or
upon subsequent judicial review. Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C.
604, 611 (2000).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011