- 4 -
Where the validity of the underlying tax liability is not
properly at issue, however, the Court will review the
Commissioner’s administrative determination for an abuse of
discretion. Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000); Goza
v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 181 (2000).
Petitioner received a statutory notice of deficiency for the
year at issue, which is evidenced by his previous petition for
redetermination of deficiency with this Court, pursuant to
section 6213(a). Thus, his underlying tax liability is not
properly at issue in this proceeding. Accordingly, we review
respondent’s determination for an abuse of discretion. See Sego
v. Commissioner, supra at 610; Goza v. Commissioner, supra at
181.
Nevertheless, petitioner continues to assert frivolous
claims. See, e.g., Pond v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-255
(rejecting taxpayer’s argument that exemption amount is not
defined by statute); Saxon v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-52
(taxpayer’s contention that OMB control No. 1545-0074, on the
Form 1040 is invalid and does not comply with the requirements of
the PRA is groundless (citing James v. United States, 970 F.2d
750, 753 n.6 (10th Cir. 1992); United States v. Neff, 954 F.2d
698, 699 (11th Cir. 1992)). Petitioner does not challenge the
appropriateness nor the intended method of collection. Neither
does petitioner offer any alternative means of collection or
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011