Thomas C. Johnson - Page 8

                                        - 8 -                                         
          the taxpayer to seek judicial review in the Tax Court or,                   
          depending upon the circumstances, a U.S. District Court.  In                
          considering whether taxpayers are entitled to any relief from the           
          Commissioner’s determination, this Court has established the                
          following standard of review:                                               
               where the validity of the underlying tax liability is                  
               properly at issue, the Court will review the matter on                 
               a de novo basis.  However, where the validity of the                   
               underlying tax liability is not properly at issue, the                 
               Court will review the Commissioner’s administrative                    
               determination for abuse of discretion. [Sego v.                        
               Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000).]                               
          II.  Challenges to Underlying Liabilities                                   
               As indicated in the above quotation of section                         
          6330(c)(2)(B), challenges to the underlying tax liability may be            
          raised only where the taxpayer did not receive a notice of                  
          deficiency or otherwise have an opportunity to dispute such                 
          liability.                                                                  
               A.  1995 and 1996                                                      
               With respect to 1995 and 1996, petitioner conceded to                  
          Mr. Shirah during his Appeals Office hearing that he had received           
          the notices of deficiency issued by respondent.  Thus, regardless           
          of the validity of the arguments submitted by petitioner in his             
          petition and amended petition concerning the adjustments made by            
          respondent to his 1995 and 1996 returns, he is precluded from               
          raising those disputes in this proceeding.  The Court concludes             








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

Last modified: May 25, 2011