- 8 - conclude that there are no genuine issues of material fact regarding the questions raised in respondent’s motion. A taxpayer may raise challenges to the existence or the amount of the taxpayer’s underlying tax liability if the taxpayer did not receive a notice of deficiency or did not otherwise have an opportunity to dispute the tax liability. Sec. 6330(c)(2)(B). Where the validity of the underlying tax liability is properly placed at issue, the Court will review the matter on a de novo basis. Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000); Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 181-182 (2000). Although petitioner did not receive a notice of deficiency with respect to peti- tioner’s unpaid liability for 1998,5 the Court finds the conten- tions and arguments which petitioner advanced at his Appeals Office hearing and advances in his response to respondent’s motion (petitioner’s response) and which challenge the existence or the amount of petitioner’s unpaid liability for 1998 to be frivolous and/or groundless.6 We now turn to the remaining issues that petitioner raised at his Appeals Office hearing and in petitioner’s response with 5See supra note 2. 6The types of contentions, arguments, and requests in peti- tioner’s response are similar to the types of contentions, arguments, and requests set forth in responses by certain other taxpayers with cases in the Court to motions for summary judgment and to impose a penalty under sec. 6673 filed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in such other cases. See, e.g., Flathers v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-60.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011