- 8 -
Appeals Office hearing constitutes a permissible challenge to the
underlying tax liability under section 6330(c)(2)(B). Unlike the
taxpayer in Montgomery, however, petitioner is not disputing the
accuracy of his self-determined tax liability. Rather, he
alleges that the liability has been paid by the trustee. We have
not specifically decided whether such a claim involves (1) a
determination under section 6330(c)(2)(B) relating to the
existence or amount of the underlying tax liability entitled to
de novo review by this Court, or (2) a section 6330(c)(2)(A)
determination relating to an “unpaid tax” subject to review for
abuse of discretion. In Washington v. Commissioner, 120 T.C. 114
(2003), we considered an analogous issue (whether the Appeals
officer was correct in determining that the taxpayer’s self-
determined tax liabilities had not been discharged in
bankruptcy), but in sustaining the Appeals officer’s
determination to proceed with collection in Washington we did not
specifically address the appropriate standard of review.
In this case, all of the evidence contained in the trial
record (including copies of IRS transcripts covering petitioner’s
1990-96 taxable years, which were introduced into evidence during
the trial) was available to Appeals Officer Sansbury in making
her determination. For the reasons discussed in Section II,
infra, our review of that evidence causes us to sustain Appeals
Officer Sansbury’s determination to proceed with collection
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011