John F. Weber - Page 5

                                        - 5 -                                         
          underlying tax liability.  Van Es v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 324,            
          328 (2000).                                                                 
               Although section 6330 does not prescribe the standard of               
          review that the Court is to apply in reviewing the Commissioner’s           
          administrative determinations, we have stated that, where the               
          validity of the underlying tax liability is properly at issue,              
          the Court will review the matter de novo.  Sego v. Commissioner,            
          114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000); Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 181           
          (2000).  Where the validity of the underlying tax liability is              
          not properly at issue, however, the Court will review the                   
          Commissioner’s administrative determination for abuse of                    
          discretion.  Sego v. Commissioner, supra; Goza v. Commissioner,             
          supra.                                                                      
               The notice of deficiency for the year 2000 was sent to                 
          petitioner’s last known address.  Petitioner does not dispute               
          that he received the notice of deficiency for 2000.  Accordingly,           
          he cannot challenge his underlying liability.  See sec.                     
          6330(c)(2)(B); Sego v. Commissioner, supra at 610-611; Goza v.              
          Commissioner, supra at 182-183.  Therefore, we review                       
          respondent’s determination for an abuse of discretion.  See Sego            
          v. Commissioner, supra at 610.                                              
               Petitioner has failed to raise a spousal defense, make a               
          valid challenge to the appropriateness of respondent’s intended             







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011