- 7 -
collection. Section 6330(c)(2)(B) provides that the existence
and amount of the underlying tax liability can be contested at an
Appeals Office hearing if the person did not receive a notice of
deficiency for the taxes in question or did not otherwise have an
opportunity to dispute the tax liability. See Sego v.
Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 609 (2000); Goza v. Commissioner,
supra. Section 6330(d) provides for judicial review of the
administrative determination in the Tax Court or a Federal
District Court, as may be appropriate.
Petitioner first contends that he was unlawfully denied the
opportunity to challenge the existence or amount of his tax
liabilities for the years in question. The record in this case
shows otherwise. As was the case in Goza v. Commissioner, supra,
petitioner received a notice of deficiency for the years in issue
and failed to file a timely petition for redetermination with
this Court. It follows that section 6330(c)(2)(B) bars
petitioner from challenging the existence or amount of the
underlying tax liability in this collection review proceeding.
Even if petitioner were permitted to challenge the underlying tax
liability, his arguments are clearly frivolous.
Petitioner has failed to raise a spousal defense, make a
valid challenge to the appropriateness of respondent’s intended
collection action, or offer alternative means of collection.
These issues are now deemed conceded. Rule 331(b)(4). Further,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011