Geoffrey K. J. Yuen - Page 6

                                        - 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