Garrett Lawrence Bailey - Page 11

                                       - 11 -                                         
               Following a hearing, the Appeals Office must determine                 
          whether the proposed levy action may proceed.  Sec. 6330(c)(3).             
          In so doing, the Appeals Office is required to take into                    
          consideration the verification presented by the Secretary, the              
          issues raised by the taxpayer, and whether the proposed                     
          collection action appropriately balances the need for efficient             
          collection of taxes with concerns regarding the intrusiveness of            
          the proposed collection action.  Id.  The taxpayer may petition             
          the Tax Court or, in limited cases, a Federal District Court for            
          judicial review of the Appeals Office’s determination.  Sec.                
          6330(d).                                                                    
               If the taxpayer files a timely petition for judicial review,           
          the applicable standard of review depends on whether the                    
          underlying tax liability is properly at issue.  Where the                   
          underlying tax liability is properly at issue, the Court reviews            
          any determination regarding the underlying tax liability de novo.           
          Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000).  The Court                  
          reviews any other administrative determination regarding the                
          proposed collection action for abuse of discretion.  Id.                    
          I.  Petitioner’s Challenge to the Underlying Tax Liabilities                
               A.  Mailing and Delivery of Notice of Deficiency--1995 and             
               1996 Tax Liabilities                                                   
               Petitioner argues that because he did not receive the notice           
          of deficiency that respondent issued for 1995 and 1996, he                  
          should not have been precluded from challenging the validity of             





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011