- 5 -
that liability. Sec. 6330(c)(2)(B); see Montgomery v.
Commissioner, 122 T.C. 1 (2004).
This Court has jurisdiction under section 6330 to review the
Commissioner’s administrative determinations. Sec. 6330(d); see
Iannone v. Commissioner, 122 T.C. 287, 290 (2004). When the
validity of the underlying tax liability is properly at issue, we
review the determination on a de novo basis. When the underlying
liability is not properly at issue, the Court will review the
Appeals officer’s determination for abuse of discretion. Sego v.
Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000); Goza v. Commissioner, 114
T.C. 176, 183 (2000). Whether an abuse of discretion has
occurred depends upon whether the exercise of discretion is
without sound basis in fact or law. See Freije v. Commissioner,
125 T.C. 14 (2005); Ansley-Sheppard-Burgess Co. v. Commissioner,
104 T.C. 367, 371 (1995).
The record is clear that a notice of deficiency was issued
to petitioner for the taxable year 1995 on February 12, 2002.
Petitioner does not assert that it was not sent to her last known
address or that she did not receive it in time to file a timely
petition. Petitioner filed a petition in response to the notice
of deficiency, and as clearly set forth in the Court’s order of
dismissal entered August 21, 2002, the petition was untimely.
The Court concludes that petitioner received the notice of
deficiency and was given an opportunity to dispute the underlying
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011