- 11 -
181-182. Where the underlying tax liability is not at issue, we
review the determination for abuse of discretion. Id. at 182.
Whether an abuse of discretion has occurred depends upon whether
the exercise of discretion is without sound basis in fact or law.
See Freije v. Commissioner, 125 T.C. 14, 23 (2005);
Ansley-Sheppard-Burgess Co. v. Commissioner, 104 T.C. 367, 371
(1995).
Standard of Review of Determination
At the hearing on respondent's motion, petitioner conceded
receiving the notice of deficiency for 2000 and failing to file a
petition for redetermination. He maintains that the notice of
deficiency was invalid. Having received the notice and failed to
file a petition with respect to it, petitioner may not challenge
it now or otherwise contest the underlying tax liability in this
proceeding.8 Goza v. Commissioner, supra at 183. As the
underlying liability is therefore not at issue, respondent's
determination is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Id. at 182;
see also Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000).
Respondent's Determination
Petitioner repeatedly stated that he is challenging "the
appropriateness of the collection actions" as provided in section
6330(c)(2)(A)(ii). He has provided no specifics, however. In
8 The letter petitioner sent to the IRS Service Center that
disputed the notice of deficiency contained only frivolous tax
protester arguments.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011