- 9 -
liability is properly at issue, the Court reviews any
determination regarding the underlying tax liability de novo.
Sego v. Commissioner, supra at 610; Goza v. Commissioner, supra
at 181-182. The Court reviews other administrative
determinations regarding the proposed levy action for abuse of
discretion. Sego v. Commissioner, supra.
Petitioner makes no claim that the Appeals officer failed to
obtain verification that the requirements of any applicable law
or administrative procedure have been met. See sec. 6330(c)(1).
Instead, petitioner’s challenge to respondent’s determination
raises issues almost exclusively related to the existence of his
1997 Federal income tax liability. See sec. 6330(c)(2)(B).2
Although a notice of deficiency was issued to petitioner for
1997, respondent concedes that petitioner did not receive that
notice. Consequently, respondent does not dispute petitioner’s
right to challenge the existence or the amount of his 1997
Federal income tax liability in this proceeding.
After careful consideration of the evidence presented in
this proceeding, we find that petitioner has failed to establish
2 Sec. 6330(c)(2)(B) provides:
(B) Underlying liability.--The person may also
raise at the hearing challenges to the existence or
amount of the underlying tax liability for any tax
period if the person did not receive any statutory
notice of deficiency for such tax liability or did not
otherwise have an opportunity to dispute such tax
liability.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011