- 13 -
cannot be considered. See, e.g., Pierson v. Commissioner, 115
T.C. 576, 580 (2000); Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 612
(2000); Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 183 (2000) (granting
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted where taxpayer received notice of deficiency but
at hearing and in this Court did not raise a spousal defense,
challenge the appropriateness of the collection action, or offer
collection alternatives).
In Washington v. Commissioner, 120 T.C. at 120 n.9, the
Commissioner did not dispute that the argument that unpaid
liabilities were discharged in bankruptcy raised an issue
appropriate for hearing under section 6330(c)(2)(A). Here,
unlike Washington, a notice of deficiency was issued. However,
respondent does not contest that petitioner’s arguments in this
case are “challenges to the appropriateness of collection
actions” under section 6330(c)(2)(A).8 Therefore, we shall
review the determination that petitioner’s unpaid liabilities
were not discharged in bankruptcy.
8Similar to this case, in Thomas v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
2003-231, the taxpayers received a notice of deficiency and we in
effect treated their bankruptcy discharge arguments as challenges
under sec. 6330(c)(2)(A). See also Richardson v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 2003-154 n.9, where no notice was issued and we stated
that the taxpayer’s bankruptcy discharge argument raised an issue
relevant to the appropriateness of the collection action.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011