- 29 -
he concedes.2 Id. Petitioner and respondent disagree about the
date of the first notice and demand, which affects the correct
computation of petitioner’s interest, which affects the correct
amount of petitioner’s underlying tax liability for 1992, which
affects the amount of petitioner’s overpayment and refund. Id.
Accordingly, there is no question as to the existence of an
actual case or controversy. See Charlotte’s Office Boutique,
Inc. v. Commissioner, supra at 1211.
Section 6330(c)(3): “Determination”
The “determination” that we have jurisdiction to review
under section 6330(d) is set forth in section 6330(c)(3). The
determination made “by an appeals officer under this subsection”
shall take into consideration “(A) the verification presented
under paragraph (1); (B) the issues raised under paragraph (2);
and (C) whether any proposed collection action balances the need
for efficient collection of taxes with the legitimate concern of
the person that any collection action be no more intrusive than
2 In his pretrial memorandum, dated Sept. 3, 2004,
respondent stated: “What remains at issue is the amount of the
refund for 1992 owed to the petitioner, which turns primarily on
when the notice and demand was sent to the petitioner for the
1992 tax liability.” At the recall of this case on Sept. 20,
2004, respondent stated: “There’s an overpayment on 1992. This
whole proceeding is about how large an overpayment Petitioner is
to receive.” Respondent continued: “we’re thinking that this is
a case that’s appropriate for a [Rule] 155 [computation] because
whichever way the Court rules, it will be necessary to do a
computation as to the amount of the refund. * * * I ballparked
the refund at something like $2,600 * * * and more if the
Petitioner wins.”
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011