Simon L. and Patricia M. Richard - Page 10

                                        - 9 -                                         
          section 6330 hearing.  See sec. 301.6330-1(f)(2), Q&A-F5, Proced.           
          & Admin. Regs.; see also Magana v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 488,              
          493 (2002).  Where the underlying tax liability is properly at              
          issue, we review the determination de novo.  E.g., Goza v.                  
          Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 181-182 (2000).  Where the underlying           
          tax liability is not at issue, we review the determination for              
          abuse of discretion.  Id. at 182.  Whether an abuse of discretion           
          has occurred depends upon whether the exercise of discretion is             
          without sound basis in fact or law.  See Ansley-Sheppard-Burgess            
          Co. v. Commissioner, 104 T.C. 367, 371 (1995).                              
               Petitioners do not appear to dispute the underlying tax                
          liabilities for 1993 and 1997 as originally assessed by                     
          respondent.  In any event, the assessments for those years match            
          the amounts petitioners reported as due on their returns, and               
          petitioners have offered no basis for a conclusion that the                 
          assessments are in error.  See Montgomery v. Commissioner, 122              
          T.C. 1 (2004).  Instead, petitioners contend that the taxes due             
          for 1993 and 1997 have been paid.6                                          
               More specifically, petitioners contend that the $3,337.24              
          liability that respondent asserts exists for 1993 has been paid             
          because $2,617 in payments they made pursuant to the 1993                   


               6 Petitioners' claim that the 1993 and 1997 taxes have been            
          paid is the only relevant issue that they raised at the hearing             
          or herein; they have not raised any spousal defenses or offered             
          any collection alternatives.  See sec. 6330(c)(2)(A).                       





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011