- 4 -
therefore, challenges the underlying deficiencies for the 3 years
at issue. Respondent, however, takes exception to petitioner’s
claim.
As noted earlier, there were no notices of deficiency issued
to petitioner for the years at issue, 1997, 2000, and 2001.
Section 6330(c)(2)(B) states:
(B) Underlying liability.-–The person may also raise at
the hearing challenges to the existence or amount of the
underlying tax liability for any tax period if the person
did not receive any statutory notice of deficiency for such
tax liability or did not otherwise have an opportunity to
dispute such tax liability.
Petitioner did not avail himself of the opportunity to challenge
the lien and the tax liability with the Appeals officer. In
fact, the Appeals officer left the door open for such a challenge
as he indicated a belief in his determination notice that
petitioner may have been experiencing financial difficulties and
held the door open for that specific reason. At that time,
petitioner would have had the opportunity to challenge the
underlying liabilities. He failed to do that. The underlying
tax liabilities, therefore, are not properly at issue. When, as
here, the underlying liability is not at issue, this Court
reviews the Commissioner’s determination for abuse of discretion.
Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000). Accordingly, the
Court holds that there was no abuse of discretion by respondent
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011