- 7 -
Petitioner primarily argues that respondent erred by not
allowing petitioner to challenge the merits of the underlying tax
liability and by not conducting a face-to-face hearing.
As stated, however, because petitioner received a notice of
deficiency, we do not have jurisdiction herein to consider
petitioner’s underlying tax liability.5 Sec. 6330(d)(1).
The February 5, 2002, telephone conference between
petitioner and respondent’s Appeals officer was agreed to by
petitioner and constituted an appropriate hearing for purposes of
section 6330(b)(1). See Day v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-30;
Leineweber v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-17; Dorra v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-16; sec. 301.6330-1(d)(2), Q&A-D6,
Proced. & Admin. Regs.
During the hearing, petitioner failed to suggest any
collection alternatives or to raise any other valid concerns
regarding the notice of intent to levy.
Respondent properly verified that the requirements of
applicable law and administrative procedures were met, and
5 Petitioner argues that, if the $109,737 annuity
distribution was properly included on petitioner’s deceased
mother’s Federal estate tax return under sec. 2039(a), no portion
of the annuity distribution would be taxable to petitioner as the
beneficiary of the annuity. We note that the validity of this
argument depends on a number of facts not in evidence, nor
relevant, for purposes of the issue in this collection case. If
petitioner believes that he can produce evidence that establishes
that the $109,737 annuity distribution was taxable to the estate
of petitioner’s deceased mother, petitioner’s remedy, if any,
would seem to lie in a claim for refund after full payment.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011