- 7 -
Petitioner did not receive a notice of deficiency for 1997
or 2000 because respondent assessed the amounts of tax petitioner
reported on his tax returns. The underlying tax liabilities,
however, are not properly at issue in this case because
petitioner did not raise them at his hearing and he specified in
the petition filed with this Court that he did not dispute the
amounts of those liabilities.
Where, as is the case here, the validity of the underlying
tax liability is not properly placed at issue, the Court will
review the administrative determination of the Appeals Office for
abuse of discretion as to the matters raised in the petition.
Sego v. Commissioner, supra at 610; Goza v. Commissioner, supra
at 181-183. An abuse of discretion occurs when an officer takes
action that is arbitrary, capricious, or without sound basis in
fact or law. See Woodral v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 19, 23
(1999).
Petitioner “challenges the appropriateness of collection
actions based on circumstances, etc.,” and the “offers of
collection alternatives as listed without reference to the law as
written and efforts to settle by citizen (L Brown)(sic).”
Petitioner discussed collection alternatives, but failed to
provide any documentation or information regarding his financial
situation with which the Appeals officer could ascertain the
appropriateness of those alternatives. Petitioner did not
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011