- 13 -
chosen by the Commissioner is appropriate. See, e.g., Swanson v.
Commissioner, 121 T.C. 111, 119 (2003) (challenge to
appropriateness of collection reviewed for abuse of discretion).
Petitioners framed their dispute with respondent as a
dispute as to liability.2 However, the stipulated facts,
exhibits, and petitioner’s testimony at trial indicate that this
is a case where petitioners dispute the application of
transferred payments and the assessment of statutory interest and
penalties.
Because of the ambiguity of petitioners’ argument, we will
consider the argument as both a dispute as to the underlying
liability and as a challenge to the appropriateness of
respondent’s collection actions.
A. Underlying Liability
Considering petitioners’ argument as a dispute as to the
underlying tax liability, we review petitioners’ liability de
novo.
Petitioners do not in any of their papers or pleadings
include any specific calculations of disputed transferred
payments or disputed assessments of statutory interest and
2Petitioners argue first that their previous payments and
abated liabilities were not correctly applied to their subsequent
taxable years’ liabilities. Petitioners argue second that their
payment of $3,200 made in 1997 was earmarked for payment for
their 1996 taxable year liability. Finally, petitioners argue
that the penalties and interest assessed as to their unpaid
liabilities are incorrect and “exorbitantly high.”
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011