- 5 -
underlying tax liability. Van Es v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 324,
328-329 (2000). This Court has interpreted “underlying tax
liability” in section 6330(d)(1) to include any amounts owed by
the taxpayer pursuant to the tax laws, including additions to
tax. Katz v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 329, 339 (2000). Petitioner
timely filed his petition with this Court pursuant to section
6330(d)(1), and, because he was not issued a notice of deficiency
and did not otherwise have the opportunity to dispute the
underlying tax liability, petitioner may challenge the additions
to tax. See id.; sec. 6330(c)(2)(B); Montgomery v. Commissioner,
122 T.C. 1, 8-10 (2004).
Where the validity of the underlying tax liability is
properly at issue, the Court will review the matter de novo.
Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000); Goza v.
Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 181 (2000). Where the validity of
the underlying tax liability is not properly at issue, however,
the Court will review the Commissioner’s administrative
determination for abuse of discretion. Sego v. Commissioner,
supra; Goza v. Commissioner, supra.
We shall review de novo whether petitioner is liable for the
additions to tax under section 6651. See Downing v.
Commissioner, 118 T.C. 22, 29 (2002); Goodwin v. Commissioner;
T.C. Memo. 2003-289; Joye v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-14.
If we find that petitioner is liable for the additions to tax, we
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011