- 12 -
6402(a).11 An offset under section 6402 does not constitute a
levy action and accordingly is not a collection action that is
subject to review in this section 6330 proceeding. Bullock v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-5; see Boyd v. Commissioner, 124
T.C. 296, 300 (2005); sec. 301.6330-1(g)(2), Q&A-G3, Proced. &
Admin. Regs. (an offset is a nonlevy collection action that the
Internal Revenue Service may take during the suspension period
provided in section 6330(e)(1)).
In the instant case, unlike in Chocallo v. Commissioner,
supra, and Gerakios v. Commissioner, supra, there remains
unresolved petitioner’s claims for a refund. In her amended
petition, petitioner contends that she is not liable for the 1992
deficiency and associated interest on the ground that respondent
failed to assess the deficiency and mail her a timely notice and
demand to pay; alternatively, she contends that pursuant to
section 6601(c) she is not liable for interest accruals from the
period from July 5, 1997 (when she claims respondent was required
11 In her amended petition, petitioner requested that we
find that respondent was not authorized to credit her $10,633
income tax overpayment for 1999 against her 1992 account.
Petitioner has not pursued this argument on brief, and we deem
her to have abandoned it. See Nicklaus v. Commissioner, 117 T.C.
117, 120 n.4 (2001) (concluding that taxpayers abandoned
arguments and contentions asserted prior to the filing of their
brief where they failed to advance those arguments and
contentions on brief). Even if we had not concluded that
petitioner had abandoned this argument, however, we would
nevertheless conclude, for the reasons discussed supra, that we
lack authority to consider this matter pursuant to sec. 6330.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011