- 6 -
Petitioner raises two issues. First, he disagrees with the
amount assessed. Second, he wants to make installment payments.
Respondent argues that petitioner is prohibited from
challenging the underlying liability because petitioner did not
raise it at the section 6330 hearing, and this Court cannot
determine whether respondent abused his discretion as to a matter
not raised at the section 6330 hearing. We need not address
whether petitioner raised the issue of his underlying liability
or whether he is permitted to challenge it. Petitioner alleges
no facts in the petition or any other pleadings that would show
the assessed amounts are in error. See Rule 331(b)(5); Grant
Creek Water Works, Ltd. v. Commissioner, supra; Casanova Co. v.
Commissioner, supra. In addition, petitioner failed to respond
to respondent’s motion.
Respondent also argues that petitioner had the opportunity
to pay under an installment plan but failed to comply with the
conditions of entering into that agreement. Again, we need not
address petitioner’s compliance with the terms of the proposed
installment agreement. Petitioner did not respond to
respondent’s motion or allege facts that would indicate it was an
abuse of discretion for respondent to refuse to accept the
proposed installment agreement.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011