- 7 -
329, 338-339 (2000). Respondent has assessed and proposes to
collect Federal income taxes for 1988 and 1989 attributable to
adjusting the Comco items reported on petitioners’ returns. We
generally have jurisdiction to redetermine deficiencies in income
taxes and related additions to tax. See secs. 6211, 6213(a),
6214(a); see also Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 182 (2000).
We therefore have jurisdiction to review the determination notice
in this case. See Katz v. Commissioner, supra at 339.
Where the underlying tax liability is at issue in a
collection action, we review the determination de novo. Sego v.
Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000). Where the underlying
liability is not at issue, we review the determination for an
abuse of discretion. Goza v. Commissioner, supra at 181-183.
The key facts are fully stipulated and described in the
determination notice. Where, as here, we are faced with a
question of law (e.g., whether the Commissioner must issue a
deficiency notice before assessing taxes when a closing agreement
covers the treatment of certain items on a return for that year),
our holding does not depend on the standard of review we apply.
We must reject erroneous views of the law. See Kendricks v.
Commissioner, 124 T.C. 69, 75 (2005) (and the cases cited
therein); McCorkle v. Commissioner, 124 T.C. 56, 63 (2005).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011