- 7 -
penalty of up to $25,000 for instituting or maintaining an action
primarily for delay or for taking frivolous or groundless
positions.
OPINION
A. Whether Petitioner May Dispute the Underlying Tax Liability
Petitioner contends that he had no taxable income or
activities in 1994-99, and thus he had no tax liability for those
years.
A taxpayer may dispute the existence or amount of his or her
tax liability at a section 6330(b) hearing if he or she did not
receive a notice of deficiency or did not otherwise have an
opportunity to dispute the tax liability. Sec. 6330(c)(2)(B).
Petitioner received the notice of deficiency for 1994-99. Thus,
petitioner may not dispute the existence or amount of his tax
liabilities for those years under sections 6320 and 6330. Id.
B. Whether Respondent’s Determination Was an Abuse of
Discretion
Petitioner contends that respondent’s determination was an
abuse of discretion because: (1) He had no taxable income or
activities; (2) payment of Federal income tax is voluntary; (3)
the assessment was not proper; (4) the lien was premature; and
(5) the conduct of respondent’s employee was fraudulent and
subject to sanctions.1 We disagree because: (1) Petitioner had
1 Petitioner does not contend that the burden of proof
shifts to respondent under sec. 7491(a) in this case.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011