Morris Tabak - Page 8




                                        - 8 -                                         
          request administrative review of the matter (in the form of an              
          Appeals Office hearing) within the 30-day period beginning on the           
          day after the 5-day period described above.  Section 6320(c)                
          provides that the Appeals Office hearing generally shall be                 
          conducted consistent with the procedures set forth in section               
          6330(c), (d), and (e).                                                      
               Section 6330(c) provides for review with respect to                    
          collection issues such as spousal defenses, the appropriateness             
          of the Commissioner's intended collection action, and possible              
          alternative means of collection.  Section 6330(c)(2)(B) provides            
          that the existence or the amount of the underlying tax liability            
          can be contested at an Appeals Office hearing if the person did             
          not receive a notice of deficiency or did not otherwise have an             
          earlier opportunity to dispute such tax liability.  Goza v.                 
          Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 180-181 (2000); see Sego v.                     
          Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 609 (2000).  Section 6330(d) provides           
          for judicial review of the administrative determination in the              
          Tax Court or Federal District Court.                                        
               In his petition, petitioner failed to raise a spousal                  
          defense, make a valid challenge to the appropriateness of                   
          respondent’s intended collection action, or offer alternative               
          means of collection.  These issues are now deemed conceded.  Rule           
          331(b)(4); see Behling v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. at 579.  Indeed,           
          the only disagreement expressed by petitioner in his petition               






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

Last modified: May 25, 2011