John P. and Sharon Lynn - Page 6

                                        - 6 -                                         
          frustration.  We feel relief of penalty and interest will be                
          satisfactory solution.”                                                     
                                       OPINION                                        
               Section 6330 provides that no levy may be made on any                  
          property or right to property of a person unless the Secretary              
          first notifies the person in writing of the right to a hearing              
          before respondent’s Appeals Office.  Section 6330(c)(1) provides            
          that the Appeals officer must verify at the hearing that                    
          applicable laws and administrative procedures have been followed.           
          At the hearing, the person may raise any relevant issue relating            
          to the unpaid tax or the proposed levy, including appropriate               
          spousal defenses, challenges to the appropriateness of collection           
          actions, and collection alternatives.  Sec. 6330(c)(2)(A).  The             
          person may challenge the existence or amount of the underlying              
          tax liability, however, only if the person did not receive any              
          statutory notice of deficiency for such tax liability or did not            
          otherwise have an opportunity to dispute such tax liability.                
          Sec. 6330(c)(2)(B).  In the instant case, petitioners do not                
          challenge the existence or the amount of the underlying                     
          liability.  Consequently, we review respondent’s determination              
          for abuse of discretion.  See Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604,           
          610 (2000); Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 181-182 (2000).             
               Petitioners contend that they and Revenue Officer Mitchell             
          orally agreed that petitioners’ payments under the installment              






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011