Irene Lucille Griffen - Page 6

                                        - 5 -                                         
          sustaining respondent’s proposed levy as the appropriate means of           
          collecting petitioner’s unpaid liability for the 1998 tax year.             
                                     Discussion                                       
               Section 6330(c) prescribes the matters that a person may               
          raise at an Appeals Office hearing.  Section 6330(c)(2)(A)                  
          provides that a person may raise collection issues such as                  
          spousal defenses, the appropriateness of the Commissioner's                 
          intended collection action, and possible alternative means of               
          collection.  See Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 609 (2000);            
          Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 180 (2000).  In addition,               
          section 6330(c)(2)(B) establishes the circumstances under which a           
          person may challenge the existence or amount of his or her                  
          underlying tax liability.  Section 6330(c)(2)(B) provides:                  
                    (2) Issues at hearing.--                                          
                    *      *      *      *      *      *      *                       
                         (B) Underlying liability.--The person may                    
                    also raise at the hearing challenges to the                       
                    existence or amount of the underlying tax                         
                    liability for any tax period if the person did not                
                    receive any statutory notice of deficiency for                    
                    such tax liability or did not otherwise have an                   
                    opportunity to dispute such tax liability.                        
               On November 29, 2000, respondent sent a notice of deficiency           
          to petitioner’s S.E. 26th Street address.  The notice was sent by           
          certified mail, but petitioner contends that she does not recall            
          receiving a notice of deficiency, and no petition for                       
          redetermination was filed with this Court.                                  
               Petitioner received mail subsequently sent to that address.            






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011