- 10 -
98 T.C. 518, 520 (1992), affd. 17 F.3d 965 (7th Cir. 1994). We
conclude that there are no genuine issues of material fact
regarding the questions raised in respondent’s motion.
A taxpayer may raise challenges to the existence or the
amount of the taxpayer’s underlying liability if the taxpayer did
not receive a notice of deficiency or did not otherwise have an
opportunity to dispute the tax liability. Sec. 6330(c)(2)(B).
Where the validity of the underlying tax liability is properly
placed at issue, the Court will review the matter on a de novo
basis. Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000); Goza v.
Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 181-182 (2000). Where the validity
of the underlying tax liability is not properly placed at issue,
the Court will review the determination of the Commissioner of
the Internal Revenue for abuse of discretion. Sego v. Commis-
sioner, supra; Goza v. Commissioner, supra at 182.
Respondent based the assessment with respect to each of
petitioners’ taxable years 1998 and 1999 on the total tax shown
in petitioners’ return for each such year. In the notice of
determination, the Appeals Office concluded that petitioners took
positions that “have no merit and are groundless.” Petitioners
do not claim here that the amount of tax reported in their return
for each of their taxable years 1998 and 1999 is not correct.
Instead, they advance statements, contentions, arguments, and
requests in the petition and the attachments to that petition
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011