Howard Dysle - Page 8

                                        - 8 -                                         
          seek judicial review with the Tax Court or a U.S. District Court,           
          as is appropriate.  If the underlying tax liability is properly             
          at issue, we review that issue de novo.  Sego v. Commissioner,              
          supra at 610; Goza v. Commissioner, supra at 181.  If the                   
          validity of the underlying tax liability is not at issue, we                
          review the Commissioner’s determination for an abuse of                     
          discretion.  Sego v. Commissioner, supra at 610.                            
               Petitioner did not receive a statutory notice of deficiency            
          for 1996 or 1998.  Respondent ultimately assessed petitioner’s              
          1996 and 1998 tax based on the returns for 1996 and 1998                    
          petitioner submitted to the IRS.  Petitioner raised the issue of            
          his underlying liability for 1996 at the hearing.  Accordingly,             
          petitioner’s underlying liability for 1996 is properly before the           
          Court, and we review that issue de novo. See Montgomery v.                  
          Commissioner, 122 T.C. 1 (2004); Sego v. Commissioner, supra;               
          Goza v. Commissioner, supra.                                                
               In the hearing request and a supplemental Form 12153,                  
          petitioner stated that he had not been credited with payments he            
          made to the IRS.  We review de novo respondent’s determination              
          regarding the amount unpaid after application of credits to which           
          petitioner is entitled.  Boyd v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 127, 131            
          (2001) (where the issue is “the amount of tax owed that remains             
          unpaid” we review respondent’s determination de novo as this is a           








Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011