- 8 -
The only issue raised in petitioner’s petition and in
petitioner’s response is the underlying tax liability for peti-
tioner’s taxable year 2000. In petitioner’s response, petitioner
states:
3. Please allow Petitioner to re-emphasize the
overall issue in question raised by I.R.S. audit was
that of Petitioner Rosie L. Moore’s legal filing status
for calendar year 2000.
4. The question of legal filing status for Rosie
L. Moore led to Respondent’s presumption of said under-
lying liability.
5. Petitioner provided proper documentation in
support of filing status claimed by said Petitioner in
year 2000.
Petitioner received a notice of deficiency with respect to
her taxable year 2000, but she did not file a petition with
respect to that notice. On the instant record, we find that
petitioner may not challenge the existence or the amount of
petitioner’s unpaid liability for 2000. See sec. 6330(c)(2)(B);
Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610-611 (2000); Goza v.
Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 182-183 (2000).
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 of the Internal
Revenue for abuse of discretion. Sego v. Commissioner, supra at
610; Goza v. Commissioner, supra at 182.
Based upon our examination of the entire record before us,
we find that respondent did not abuse respondent’s discretion in
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011