- 14 -
of review that the Court is to apply in reviewing the
Commissioner’s administrative determinations, we have stated that
where the validity of the underlying tax liability is properly at
issue, the Court will review the matter de novo. Where the
validity of the underlying tax liability is not properly at
issue, however, the Court will review the Commissioner’s
administrative determination for abuse of discretion. Sego v.
Commissioner, supra at 610; Goza v. Commissioner, supra at 181.
Generally, under section 6330(c)(2)(B), issues that are
reviewed de novo include those such as a redetermination of the
tax on which the Commissioner based the assessment, provided that
the taxpayer did not have an opportunity to seek such a
redetermination before assessment. See, e.g., Landry v.
Commissioner, 116 T.C. 60, 62 (2001) (“Because the validity of
the underlying tax liability, i.e., the amount unpaid after
application of credits to which petitioner is entitled, is
properly at issue, we review respondent’s determination de
novo.”). Whether the Commissioner’s assessment was made within
the limitation period also constitutes a challenge to the
underlying tax liability. Hoffman v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. 140,
145 (2002).
Under an abuse of discretion standard, “we do not interfere
unless the Commissioner’s determination is arbitrary, capricious,
clearly unlawful, or without sound basis in fact or law.” Ewing
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