Richard John Florance, Jr. - Page 7

                                        - 7 -                                         
          the taxpayer may request administrative review of the matter (in            
          the form of a hearing) within a prescribed 30-day period.  Sec.             
          6330(a) and (b).                                                            
               Pursuant to section 6330(c)(2)(A), a taxpayer may raise at             
          the section 6330 hearing any relevant issue with regard to the              
          Commissioner’s collection activities, including spousal defenses,           
          challenges to the appropriateness of the Commissioner’s intended            
          collection action, and alternative means of collection.  Sego v.            
          Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 609 (2000); Goza v. Commissioner, 114           
          T.C. 176, 180 (2000).  If a taxpayer received a statutory notice            
          of deficiency for the years in issue or otherwise had the                   
          opportunity to dispute the underlying tax liability, the taxpayer           
          is precluded from challenging the existence or amount of the                
          underlying tax liability.  Sec. 6330(c)(2)(B); Sego v.                      
          Commissioner, supra at 610-611; Goza v. Commissioner, supra at              
          182-183.                                                                    
               Petitioner received the notice of deficiency for 1994, 1995,           
          and 1996.  Accordingly, he cannot challenge his underlying                  
          liabilities.  See sec. 6330(c)(2)(B); Sego v. Commissioner, supra           
          at 610-611; Goza v. Commissioner, supra at 182-183.  Therefore,             
          we review respondent’s determination for an abuse of discretion.            
          See Sego v. Commissioner, supra at 610.                                     
               Petitioner has failed to raise a spousal defense, make a               
          valid challenge to the appropriateness of respondent’s intended             






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011