- 12 -
tax on which the Commissioner based the assessment, provided that
the taxpayer did not have an opportunity to seek a
redetermination before assessment. See, e.g., Landry v.
Commissioner, 116 T.C. 60, 62 (2001) (“Because the validity of
the underlying tax liability, i.e., the amount unpaid after
application of credits to which petitioner is entitled, is
properly at issue, we review respondent’s determination de
novo.”). Whether the Commissioner’s assessment was made within
the limitation period also constitutes a challenge to the
underlying tax liability. Hoffman v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. 140,
145 (2002).
Under an abuse of discretion standard, “we do not interfere
unless the Commissioner’s determination is arbitrary, capricious,
clearly unlawful, or without sound basis in fact or law.” Ewing
v. Commissioner, 122 T.C. 32, 39 (2004); see also Woodral v.
Commissioner, 112 T.C. 19, 23 (1999). Review for abuse of
discretion includes “any relevant issue relating to the unpaid
tax or the proposed levy”, including “challenges to the
appropriateness of collection actions” and “offers of collection
alternatives” such as offers in compromise. Sec. 6330(c)(2)(A).
Questions about the appropriateness of the collection action
include whether it is proper for the Commissioner to proceed with
the collection action as determined in the notice of
determination, and whether the type and/or method of collection
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011