-20-
ingly, petitioner is precluded from challenging those
items in this [petitioner’s affected items] proceeding
[petitioner’s TEFRA-related case at docket No. 14741-
02]. See secs. 6221, 6226; Brookes v. Commissioner,
supra at 5-7.
Id.
For the same reasons on which we relied in rejecting peti-
tioner’s position in petitioner’s affected items proceeding, id.,
we reject petitioner’s position in the instant case. On the
record before us, we find that petitioner may not challenge the
existence or the amount of petitioner’s respective unpaid liabil-
ities for 1996 and 1997. See sec. 6330(c)(2)(B).
Where, as is the case here, the validity of the underlying
tax liability is not properly placed at issue, the Court will
review the determination of the Commissioner for abuse of discre-
tion. Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000); Goza v.
Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 181-182 (2000).
Based upon our examination of the entire record before us,
we find that respondent did not abuse respondent’s discretion in
determining in the notice of determination that, as long as
petitioner is in compliance with the installment agreement into
which he voluntarily entered with respect to petitioner’s respec-
tive unpaid liabilities for 1996 and 1997, the notice of intent
to levy is moot. On that record, we shall grant respondent’s
motion.
We have considered all of petitioner’s statements, conten-
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011