- 6 -
delays by the IRS. Respondent asserts that there was no abuse of
discretion in failing to abate statutory interest because
petitioner did not identify the errors or delays. Respondent
asserts that petitioner cannot challenge the addition to tax as
part of the underlying tax liability because petitioner received
a notice of deficiency and had a previous opportunity to contest
the tax.
Discussion
This Court has jurisdiction under section 6330 to review the
Commissioner’s administrative determinations. Sec. 6330(d).
Section 6330(c)(2)(A) provides that the taxpayer may raise any
relevant issue with regard to the Commissioner’s collection
activities, including spousal defenses, challenges to the
appropriateness of the intended collection action, and
alternative means of collection. Additionally, the taxpayer may
challenge the existence or amount of the underlying tax
liability, including a liability reported by the taxpayer on an
original return, if the taxpayer “did not receive any statutory
notice of deficiency for such tax liability or did not otherwise
have an opportunity to dispute such tax liability.” Sec.
6330(c)(2)(B); see also Montgomery v. Commissioner, 122 T.C. 1,
9-10 (2004).
Petitioner’s underlying tax liability is not at issue
because petitioner received a notice of deficiency on December 6,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011