- 7 -
Taxable Year 2000
As indicated, a timely petition was filed in response to the
notice of determination as to the 2000 taxable year. Petitioner
does not appear to dispute the underlying tax liability, and,
accordingly, we review the Commissioner’s administrative
determination for abuse of discretion.3 Lunsford v.
Commissioner, supra at 185; Goza v. Commissioner, supra at 181-
182.
The Appeals Office summary reflects that an offer in
compromise was submitted by petitioner on February 16, 2001.4
The offer in compromise was returned to petitioner on March 1,
2002, for failure to provide required supporting financial data.
In his request for an Appeals Office hearing (Form 12153, Request
for a Collection Due Process Hearing) dated April 24, 2002,
petitioner left blank the section of the form which states:
2(...continued)
a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and to strike, under
these circumstances. See Rules 52, 53, and 54. However, given
that it is clear that we do not have jurisdiction, and that we
cannot ignore a jurisdictional issue simply because the parties
have not filed an appropriate motion, the Court, on its own
motion, will dismiss and strike as appropriate. Fernandez v.
Commissioner, 114 T.C. 324, 328 (2000); Naftel v. Commissioner,
85 T.C. 527, 530 (1985).
3 It is not clear from this record whether the amount due
for the taxable year 2000 results from an underpayment or an
understatement. Petitioner did not assert at the Appeals Office
level that he disputed the underlying tax liability, nor does he
articulate any such dispute in this proceeding.
4 A copy of the offer in compromise was not made part of
the record in this case.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011