- 6 -
determination to this Court if we have jurisdiction over the
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 on a de novo basis. 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.
Petitioner does not dispute that he received the notices of
deficiency for 1999 and 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.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011