- 16 -
the underlying tax liability can be contested at an Appeals
Office hearing if the person did not receive a notice of
deficiency for the tax in question or did not otherwise have an
earlier opportunity to dispute the tax liability. See Sego v.
Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 609 (2000); Goza v. Commissioner,
supra at 180-181; see also Magana v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 488,
492 (2002); Wooten v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-113. Section
6330(d) provides for judicial review of the administrative
determination in the Tax Court or a Federal District Court, as
may be appropriate.
It is well settled that where the validity of the underlying
tax liability is properly at issue in a collection review
proceeding, the Court will review the matter on a de novo basis.
Goza v. Commissioner, supra at 181-182.
Where the validity of the underlying tax liability, however,
is not properly at issue, the Court will review the
Commissioner’s administrative determination for abuse of
discretion. Id. In reviewing for abuse of discretion, we
generally consider “only arguments, issues, and other matter that
were raised at the collection hearing or otherwise brought to the
attention of the Appeals Office.” Magana v. Commissioner, supra
at 493. Furthermore, in reviewing the determination of an
Appeals Office that a taxpayer is not entitled to a collection
alternative, we have held that such a determination does not
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011