- 13 -
issue. Sec. 6330(d)(1).9 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, 181-182 (2000). The Court
reviews any other administrative determination regarding the
proposed levy action for an abuse of discretion. Sego v.
Commissioner, supra at 610; Goza v. Commissioner, supra at 182.
B. Review for Abuse of Discretion
The estate tax liability was previously litigated and
determined by this Court. That decision was affirmed by the
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. See Estate of
Atkinson v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 26 (2000), affd. 309 F.3d 1290
(11th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, the estate’s underlying tax
liability is not properly at issue, and the administrative record
will be reviewed for an abuse of discretion. An abuse of
discretion has occurred if the “Commissioner exercised * * *
[his] discretion arbitrarily, capriciously, or without sound
basis in fact or law.” Woodral v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 19, 23
(1999).
The estate argues that respondent abused his discretion for
the following reasons: (1) The estate’s administrative expenses
were not considered adequately by respondent; (2) Ms. Clark had
9Determinations made after Oct. 16, 2006, are appealable
only to the Tax Court. See Pension Protection Act of 2006, Pub.
L. 109-280, sec. 855, 120 Stat. 1019.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007