Joseph Paul Freije - Page 15

                                       - 15 -                                         
         consider only those issues that the taxpayer raised during the               
         section 6330 hearing.  See sec. 301.6330-1(f)(2), Q&A-F5, Proced.            
         & Admin. Regs.; see also Magana v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 488,               
         493 (2002).  Where the underlying tax liability is properly at               
         issue, we review the determination de novo.  E.g., Goza v.                   
         Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 181-182 (2000).  Where the underlying            
         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).                               
              Petitioner, proceeding pro se, seeks a refund of all income             
         taxes paid for taxable years 1995 through 2001.  Our jurisdiction            
         in this case is confined, however, to a review of the Appeals                
         officer's determination approving a levy to collect unpaid tax               
         liabilities for 1997, 1998, and 1999.  We shall treat petitioner             
         as contesting the Appeals officer's determination for all years,             
         and consider his arguments to the extent they have any bearing               
         thereon.  In particular, we find that petitioner's communications            
         with the Appeals officer may be fairly construed as proposing a              
         collection alternative, and as raising the issue that payments he            
         made with respect to the years in issue were not properly                    
         accounted for by respondent and that the tax reported as due on              

Page:  Previous  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011