- 6 -
our Opinions in Keene v. Commissioner, 121 T.C. 8 (2003), and
Montgomery v. Commissioner, 122 T.C. 1 (2004), in which we held,
respectively, that a taxpayer in a section 6330 hearing is
entitled to make an audio recording thereof, and to dispute the
underlying tax liability even where the taxpayer reported the
liability as due on his return.3 At trial, we afforded
petitioner the opportunity to raise any issue he considered
relevant to the proposed levy or the underlying tax liabilities.4
We consider those arguments below.
Petitioner argues that the notice of determination was
invalid, and we therefore lack jurisdiction, because the hearing
he received was defective in several respects. We disagree. The
defects in the hearing alleged by petitioner do not invalidate
the notice and deprive us of jurisdiction. See Lunsford v.
Commissioner, 117 T.C. 159, 164 (2001).
3 Certain portions of the underlying tax liabilities were
attributable to adjustments respondent made pursuant to sec.
6213(b)(1). However, we do not consider whether, pursuant to
sec. 6213(b)(2), petitioner previously had an “opportunity to
dispute” these portions within the meaning of sec. 6330(c)(2)(B)
because in this proceeding petitioner has, in any event, raised
only meritless arguments with respect to his underlying tax
liabilities.
4 In light of the fact that petitioner sought, but was
denied, recordation of the hearing, we resolve all doubts in
petitioner’s favor, treating any issue or argument he raised at
trial or in any written submission as having been raised at his
hearing.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011