- 5 -
otherwise had an opportunity to dispute the liability. Sec.
6330(c)(2)(B).
Following the hearing, the Appeals officer must determine
whether the collection action is to proceed, taking into account
the verification the Appeals officer has made, the issues raised
by the taxpayer at the hearing, and “whether any proposed
collection action balances the need for the efficient collection
of taxes with the legitimate concern of the * * * [taxpayer] that
any collection action be no more intrusive than necessary.” Sec.
6330(c)(3). We have jurisdiction to review such determinations
where we have jurisdiction of the underlying tax liability. Sec.
6330(d)(1)(A).
Where the validity of the underlying tax liability is not at
issue, we review the determination for an abuse of discretion.
Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000). Where the
validity of the underlying tax liability is properly at issue, we
review de novo. Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 181-182
(2000). The tax liability due in this case is one petitioner
self-assessed and reported on his 1998 income tax return.
Section 6330(c)(2)(B) permits taxpayers to challenge the
existence or the amount of a tax liability reported on an
original income tax return because they have not received a
notice of deficiency or otherwise had an opportunity to dispute
the tax liability in question. Montgomery v. Commissioner, 122
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011