- 7 -
we review the determination for abuse of discretion. Sego v.
Commissioner, supra at 610.
In the present case, we have jurisdiction over petitioner’s
appeal because the underlying tax liability relates to Federal
income taxes. See sec. 6330(d)(1); Landry v. Commissioner, 116
T.C. 60, 62 (2001). The underlying tax liability is properly at
issue because petitioner did not receive a statutory notice of
deficiency and did not otherwise have an opportunity to challenge
the underlying tax liability prior to her section 6330 hearing.
Accordingly, we review petitioner’s underlying tax liability on a
de novo basis.
The sole issue is whether petitioner cashed the replacement
refund check issued by respondent for the taxable year 1998.
Respondent’s determination was based on the conclusion that the
endorsement signatures on both the refund check and the
replacement check were made by petitioner. As described herein,
the endorsement signatures were not identical. We think the
simple and nondistinctive characteristics of block capital
lettering impair any meaningful comparison of the endorsement
signatures. We are not convinced by the view of the section 6330
officer that the signatures appear “similar” or the conclusion of
a TAS investigation that was not part of the record. Moreover,
as described herein, there are clear and discernible differences
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011