- 6 -
only if he or she did not receive any statutory notice of
deficiency for the tax liability or did not otherwise have an
opportunity to dispute the tax liability. Sec. 6330(c)(2)(B).
Where the validity of the underlying tax liability is
properly in issue, the Court will review the matter de novo.
Where the validity of the underlying tax is not properly at
issue, however, the Court will review the Commissioner’s
administrative determination for abuse of discretion. Sego v.
Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000); Goza v. Commissioner, 114
T.C. 176, 181-182 (2000).
Petitioner had the opportunity to challenge the correctness
of his tax liability for 1999, 2001, and 2002 but instead chose
not to petition this Court in response to the notices of
deficiency regarding those years. Therefore, petitioner’s
underlying tax liability for 1999, 2001, and 2002 is not properly
in issue, and we review respondent’s determination to proceed
with collection for an abuse of discretion.
The record demonstrates that the only issues petitioner
raised throughout the section 6330 administrative process and in
his petition to this Court were frivolous tax protester type
arguments. We do not address petitioner’s frivolous arguments
with somber reasoning and copious citations of precedent, as to
do so might suggest that these arguments possess some degree of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011