-6-
determinations for abuse of discretion. Sego v. Commissioner,
114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000). The Court reviews determinations of
underlying tax liability de novo. Hoffman v. Commissioner,
119 T.C. 140, 144-145 (2002).
Petitioners concede in their response that the sole issue
for the Court to decide is whether there was an irregularity in
the assessment shown in the transcripts. Where, as here, the
issue is whether a valid assessment was made, non-master-file
transcripts which identify the taxpayers, the character of the
liability assessed, the taxable period, and the amount of the
assessment establish the validity of an assessment, absent a
showing of irregularity. See, e.g., Nestor v. Commissioner,
118 T.C. 162 (2002).
Section 6330(d) and the rule of res judicata act as an
absolute bar to our consideration of collateral issues which have
already been, or should have been, argued before this Court in
DelVecchio v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-130. Following the
mandate of section 6330, we will not consider any of petitioners’
arguments which do not, at least on some arguable basis, address
whether there might have been an irregularity in assessment
within the narrow and precise meaning of section 6330.
Petitioners put forth two arguments to support their
conclusion that the assessment was “irregular” and improper.
First, they argue that Form 872 is a “written agreement” and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011