- 10 -
that he received the notice of deficiency and alleges that he
“would have petitioned Tax Court if the agent who sent the notice
could prove that she had the authority to do so.” On the instant
record, we find that petitioner may not challenge the existence
or the amount of petitioner’s unpaid liability for 1997. See
sec. 6330(c)(2)(B); Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610-611
(2000); Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 182-183 (2000).
Where, as is the case here, the validity of the underlying
tax liability is not properly placed at issue, the Court will
review the determination of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue
for abuse of discretion. Sego v. Commissioner, supra at 610;
Goza v. Commissioner, supra at 181-182.
As was true of petitioner’s attachment to his 1997 return,
petitioner’s October 6, 2000 letter, and petitioner’s attachment
to Form 12153, petitioner’s response contains contentions,
arguments, and requests that the Court finds to be frivolous
and/or groundless. To illustrate, petitioner argues that he “has
not received proper Notice and Demand” under section 6303(a).
That is because, according to petitioner, respondent must use
Form 17 in issuing such notice and demand.
We reject petitioner’s argument that respondent did not
issue the notice and demand required by section 6303(a). Form
4340 with respect to petitioner’s taxable year 1997 shows that
respondent sent petitioner a notice of balance due on January 8,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011