- 19 -
levy", par. (2)(A), and, if he did not receive any statutory
notice of deficiency for, or otherwise have an opportunity to
dispute, the underlying tax liability, he may also raise
"challenges to the existence or amount of the underlying tax
liability for any tax period", par. (2)(B).
Thus, our jurisdiction is defined by the scope of the
determination, which must take into consideration, if raised by
the taxpayer, "any relevant issue relating to the unpaid tax or
the proposed levy" and, in certain circumstances, "challenges to
the existence or amount of the underlying tax liability for any
tax period".
There is no question that petitioner raised the issue of a
remittance made in 1997 having been applied (improperly, in
petitioner's view) to satisfy a 1995 liability, as the
determination discusses his claim and traces the application of
the remittance.13 The question is whether the propriety of
applying the 1997 remittance to satisfy the 1995 liability is a
"relevant issue relating to the unpaid tax or the proposed levy".
If so, we have jurisdiction, as the statute required the
determination to take into consideration the issue and our
jurisdiction encompasses the determination. For the reasons
discussed below, we conclude our jurisdiction is not confined to
13 There is also no dispute that the Freijes made the
claimed remittance of $2,800 on or about June 3, 1997, as the
Form 4340 for 1995 records a payment in that amount on that date.
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011