- 6 -
is not properly at issue, the Court will review respondent’s
determination for abuse of discretion. Sego v. Commissioner, 114
T.C. 604, 610 (2000); Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 183
(2000). 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 (2005);
Ansley-Sheppard-Burgess Co. v. Commissioner, 104 T.C. 367, 371
(1995).
In the present case, petitioner received a notice of
deficiency for the taxable year 1999. The letter he sent
respondent on March 18, 2002, was not a petition for
redetermination because it was not mailed to or filed with the
Tax Court. See sec. 6213(a). Petitioner therefore cannot
challenge the existence or amount of his underlying tax
liability. See Kaplowitz v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-62.
We review for abuse of discretion.
Petitioner has not raised a spousal defense, offered a
collection alternative, or otherwise challenged the
appropriateness of respondent’s proposed collection action.
Petitioner’s dispute with respect to his AMT liability is a
challenge to his underlying tax liability, as is his contention
that respondent was not permitted to issue a notice of deficiency
after adjusting his tax return because of mathematical or
clerical errors. Even if petitioner were allowed to raise these
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011