- 6 -
collection. The taxpayer may also raise challenges to the
existence or amount of the underlying tax liability if he or she
did not receive a statutory notice of deficiency with respect to
the underlying tax liability or did not otherwise have an
opportunity to dispute that liability. Sec. 6330(c)(2)(B).
Section 6330(c)(3) provides that the determination of the
Appeals officer shall take into consideration the verification
under section 6330(c)(1), the issues raised by the taxpayer, and
whether the proposed collection action balances the need for the
efficient collection of taxes with the legitimate concern of the
taxpayer that any collection action be no more intrusive than
necessary. If the taxpayer is dissatisfied with the
determination made after the hearing, judicial review of the
determination, such as that sought in this case, is available.
See generally Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 179-181 (2000).
Where the validity of the underlying tax liability is at
issue, the Court will review the matter de novo. Davis v.
Commissioner, 115 T.C. 35, 39 (2000). However, petitioner does
not contest the amount of the underlying tax liability.
Therefore, the Court will review respondent’s determination for
abuse of discretion. Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610
(2000); Goza v. Commissioner, supra. In order to prevail, a
taxpayer must prove that the Commissioner exercised this
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011