- 9 - of Appeals) and, if dissatisfied, with judicial review of the administrative determination. See Davis v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 35, 37 (2000); Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 179 (2000). Section 6330(c)(1) imposes an obligation on the Appeals Office to obtain verification that the requirements of any applicable law or administrative procedure have been met in each case. Section 6330(c)(2) prescribes the matters that a person may raise during the administrative process. In sum, section 6330(c)(2) provides that a person may raise collection issues such as spousal defenses, the appropriateness of the Commissioner's intended collection action, and possible alternative means of collection. Section 6330(c)(2)(B) provides that the existence and amount of the underlying tax liability can be contested only if the person did not receive a notice of deficiency for the taxes in question or did not otherwise have an earlier opportunity to dispute the tax liability. See Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 609 (2000); Goza v. Commissioner, supra. The record reflects that petitioner received the deficiency notices for 1998 and 1999 yet petitioner consciously decided not to file a petition for redetermination with the Court. Consistent with section 6330(c)(2)(B), petitioner is barred from challenging the existence or amount of his underlying taxPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011