- 9 -
whether we apply an abuse of discretion or a de novo standard of
review. Therefore, as in Washington v. Commissioner, supra, we
decline to explicitly adopt a standard of review. Cf. Swanson v.
Commissioner, 121 T.C. 111, 119 (2003) (in sustaining the Appeals
officer’s determination that unpaid tax liabilities were not
discharged in bankruptcy and that collection should proceed, we
applied an abuse of discretion standard of review under
circumstances in which the petitioner had received a notice of
deficiency thereby precluding him from challenging the existence
or amount of the underlying tax liability under section
6330(c)(2)(B)).
II. The Trustee Did Not Discharge Petitioner’s 1996 Liabilities
Petitioner objects to Appeals Officer Sansbury’s
determination solely on the basis that (1) his tax and tax-
related (i.e., interest and addition-to-tax) liabilities for 1996
were discharged out of the payments made by the trustee to the
IRS and (2) respondent specifically acknowledges the discharge of
those liabilities in the closing letter. Petitioner’s position
is set forth in his request for hearing, in pertinent part, as
follows:
I do not agree that I owe the taxes identified on
the Notice of Intent to Levy for tax year * * * 1996.
The adjustments made to my tax return * * * [for 1996
are] incorrect. The non-employee compensation
identified by IRS for * * * [1996] was not paid to me.
The money was paid to the trustee of my Chapter 11
Bankruptcy (case #93-5-5237-JS). The money was part of
over $170,000 collected by the trustee from money owed
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011