- 37 -
about the type and/or method of collection action chosen by the
IRS.
Whether petitioners’ taxes have been discharged in bank-
ruptcy appears to be a challenge to the existence or amount of
their underlying tax liability under section 6330(c)(2)(B). By
claiming that the bankruptcy court discharged their tax liabili-
ties, petitioners are claiming either that (1) as a result of the
discharge their tax liability no longer exists or (2) regardless
of the continuing existence of the debt, as a result of the
discharge the amount of tax they are liable for is zero.
Whether a taxpayer is challenging the existence or amount of
the underlying tax liability is relevant because it determines
the standard of review we apply. If the validity of the underly-
ing tax liability is properly at issue, the Court reviews the
matter on a de novo basis; however, if the validity of the
underlying tax liability is not properly at issue, the Court
reviews the Commissioner’s administrative determination for an
abuse of discretion. Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610
(2000); Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 181-182 (2000). We
adopted these standards of review based on the legislative
history of section 6330:
Where the validity of the tax liability was properly at
issue in the hearing, and where the determination with
regard to the tax liability is part of the appeal, no
levy may take place during the pendency of the appeal.
The amount of the tax liability will in such cases be
reviewed by the appropriate court on a de novo basis.
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011