- 14 -
To date petitioners have not had an opportunity to “dispute”
their tax liability for the taxable year 2000 in any sense of the
term. Although petitioners reported the tax liability that is
the subject of respondent’s proposed levy on their original tax
return, they now contend (and would like the opportunity to show)
that they erred in computing the tax attributable to certain
stock options that Mr. Montgomery exercised in 2000. The record
does not reflect whether respondent has given consideration to
petitioners’ amended tax return for 2000 and their claim that
their original return contained an error. In sum, we hold that
section 6330(c)(2)(B) permits petitioners to challenge the
existence or amount of the tax liability reported on their
original income tax return because they have not received a
notice of deficiency for 2000 and they have not otherwise had an
opportunity to dispute the tax liability in question.5
5 We also observe that carving out self-assessed amounts
from the term “underlying tax liability” under sec.
6330(c)(2)(B), as respondent would have us do, does not comport
with the use of that term in sec. 6311 which deals with the
payment of tax by commercially acceptable means. Like sec. 6330,
it is another provision of the Code relating to collection.
Specifically, sec. 6311(d)(3)(A) provides in relevant part that
“a payment of internal revenue taxes * * * by use of a credit
card shall not be subject to section 161 of the Truth in Lending
Act * * * if the error alleged by the person is an error relating
to the underlying tax liability”. Similarly, sec. 6311(d)(3)(C)
provides in relevant part that “a payment of internal revenue
taxes * * * by use of a debit card shall not be subject to
section 908 of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act * * * if the
error alleged by the person is an error relating to the
underlying tax liability”. In both instances, use of the term
(continued...)
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011