June H. Ginalski - Page 5

                                        - 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