- 8 -
challenges to the appropriateness of the collection action; and
collection alternatives, such as an offer in compromise. Sec.
6330(c)(2)(A); Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 609 (2000);
Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 180 (2000). Additionally, at
the hearing, a taxpayer may contest the existence and amount of
the underlying tax liability if the taxpayer did not receive a
notice of deficiency for the tax in question or did not otherwise
have an opportunity to dispute the tax liability. Sec.
6330(c)(2)(B); Sego v. Commissioner, supra; Goza v. Commissioner,
supra at 182-183.
Following a hearing, the Appeals Office must make a
determination whether the proposed levy action may proceed. In
so doing, the Appeals Office is required to take into
consideration the verification presented by the Secretary, the
issues raised by the taxpayer, and whether the proposed levy
action appropriately balances the need for efficient collection
of taxes with the taxpayer’s concerns that any collection action
be no more intrusive than necessary. Sec. 6330(c)(3).
The taxpayer may petition the Tax Court or, depending upon
the nature of the underlying tax, a Federal District Court for
judicial review of the Appeals Office’s determination. Sec.
6330(d). If the taxpayer files a timely petition for judicial
review, the applicable standard of review depends on whether the
underlying tax liability is at issue. Where the underlying tax
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011