- 5 -
See sec. 6330(c)(2)(B); Sego v. Commissioner, supra; Goza v.
Commissioner, supra.
Petitioner does not contend that there was an abuse of
discretion on any matter other than respondent’s refusal to
consider the underlying merits of the 1993 and 1994 tax
liabilities. Petitioner believes that, if given the opportunity,
she could show that respondent’s position and this Court’s prior
holding, with respect to the underlying merits of the tax
liability, are in error.
Accordingly, the sole question we consider is whether, in
these circumstances, respondent has abused his discretion in
refusing to consider the underlying merits of petitioner’s tax
liability for the years 1993 and 1994. Sections 6320 and 6330
provide for a hearing in connection with certain collection
activity by respondent, in this instance the filing of a Notice
of Federal Tax Lien. Under section 6330(c)(2)(B) a taxpayer may
raise the merits of the underlying liability if the taxpayer “did
not receive any statutory notice of deficiency for such tax
liability or did not otherwise have an opportunity to dispute
such tax liability.” It is clear in this case that petitioner
received a statutory notice of deficiency and did have an
opportunity to dispute such tax liability. Under the statute, it
does not matter whether petitioner may now be able to show that
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011