- 12 -
Since petitioner did not receive a notice of deficiency for
1996, and did not otherwise have the opportunity to dispute her
liability pursuant to section 6330(c)(2)(B), she was entitled to
challenge the existence or the amount of the underlying tax
liability for 1996 at her Appeals Office hearing. See id. at 8-
9. Petitioner raised the allegation that her husband forged her
signature on her tax return as a defense to respondent’s
assessment.
Where the validity of the underlying tax liability is not
properly placed at issue, the Court will review the
administrative determination of the Appeals Office for an abuse
of discretion. Sego v. Commissioner, supra at 610; Goza v.
Commissioner, supra at 181-182. However, if the validity of the
underlying tax liability is properly at issue, as is the case
here, the Court reviews the matter de novo. Poindexter v.
Commissioner, 122 T.C. 280, 285 (2004), affd. 132 Fed. Appx. 919
(2d Cir. 2005); Sego v. Commissioner, supra at 609-610.
A lien or levy action under section 6330(d) is commenced by
the filing of a petition with this Court. Rule 331(a). Rule
331(b) addresses the content of the petition. Rule 331(b)(4) and
(5) requires that petitioner’s pleading contain “Clear and
concise assignments of each and every error which the petitioner
alleges to have been committed in the notice of determination”
and “Clear and concise lettered statements of the facts on which
the petitioner bases each assignment of error”. Petitioner must
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