Thomas V.F. Struhar - Page 6

                                        - 6 -                                         
          intrusiveness of the proposed collection action.  Sec.                      
          6330(c)(3).  The taxpayer may petition the Tax Court or, in                 
          limited cases, a Federal District Court for judicial review of              
          the Appeals Office’s determination.  Sec. 6330(d).                          
               If the taxpayer files a timely petition for judicial review,           
          the applicable standard of review depends on whether the                    
          underlying tax liability is at issue.  Where the underlying tax             
          liability is properly at issue, the Court reviews any                       
          determination regarding the underlying tax liability de novo.               
          Sego v. Commissioner, supra at 610.  The Court reviews any other            
          administrative determination regarding the proposed levy action             
          for abuse of discretion.  Id.                                               
               With respect to petitioner’s 1997, 1998, and 1999 income tax           
          liabilities, petitioner did not receive a notice of deficiency.             
          We assume arguendo that petitioner’s underlying tax liabilities             
          are properly at issue, and we review his challenge to the                   
          underlying tax liabilities de novo.  See Horn v. Commissioner,              
          T.C. Memo. 2002-207.                                                        
          A.  Petitioner’s Challenge to the Underlying Tax Liabilities                
               Petitioner contends that he is not subject to Federal income           
          taxes for the taxable years 1997, 1998, and 1999.  In support of            
          his position, petitioner advances only frivolous4 arguments.  We            

               4Petitioner’s arguments included the following:                        
                                                             (continued...)           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011