7
tax liability is not at issue, we review the determination for
abuse of discretion. Id. at 182. Whether an abuse of discretion
has occurred depends upon whether the exercise of discretion is
without sound basis in fact or law. See Ansley-Sheppard-Burgess
Co. v. Commissioner, 104 T.C. 367, 371 (1995).
In the instant case, it is undisputed that petitioner
received a notice of deficiency with respect to the outstanding
liabilities for 1991, 1992, 1993, and 1994. Petitioner timely
petitioned this Court for a redetermination of the asserted
deficiencies, and an opinion and decision ensued which sustained
the 1991-94 deficiencies in full and imposed a section 6673
penalty on petitioner. See Forrest v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1998-369. Consequently, petitioner was precluded from disputing
the underlying tax liabilities for 1991-94 at his hearing and
herein, see sec. 6330(c)(2)(B), and our earlier decision would in
any event be res judicata.
The only argument petitioner maintains in opposition to
respondent's motion is his contention, raised in his hearing and
in the petition, that the liabilities at issue may not be
collected because the Federal income tax is unconstitutional.2
2 Petitioner also argued in his petition that he did not
receive notice of the assessment of the liabilities at issue, but
did not renew that argument in his opposition to respondent's
motion. Assuming arguendo the argument has not been abandoned,
this claim is unavailing. The notice of intent to levy, receipt
of which by petitioner is undisputed, was sufficient to satisfy
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011