Robert Ho - Page 16

                                       - 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  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011