- 13 -
Proced. & Admin. Regs.; see also Bell v. Commissioner, 126 T.C.
356 (2006); Castleman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2007-143.
Because petitioner had an earlier opportunity to dispute his
underlying tax liability by asserting a claim for a credit under
section 53, his underlying tax liability was not properly at
issue before the settlement officer considering the lien, and it
is not properly before us now.8
II. Petitioner’s Challenge to Respondent’s Determination To File
a Lien
Although petitioner’s arguments are not clear, petitioner
appears to argue that respondent erred by rejecting collection
alternatives he raised and by offering petitioner an installment
agreement requiring monthly payments of $1,215. Petitioner
appears to argue that his financial condition is so dire that he
cannot afford to pay his 2000 and 2001 tax liabilities.
Although section 6330(c) requires respondent to consider
relevant issues properly raised by petitioner, including a claim
8In a posttrial conference call with this Court, petitioner
raised a question regarding whether the Tax Relief and Health
Care Act of 2006 (TRHCA), Pub. L. 109-432, 120 Stat. 2922,
authorizes petitioner to claim a refundable credit under sec. 53
(as amended by TRHCA) that he could then apply against his unpaid
tax liabilities for 2000 and 2001. By order, we gave the parties
time to explore the effect of TRHCA on this case and to file a
joint written status report summarizing their positions. In a
joint status report filed on June 1, 2007, respondent stated that
TRHCA has no impact on this case, and he explained why.
Petitioner simply asserted that he has an AMT credit that he has
never used and that he will use any refundable credit he may
receive under the new law to pay his 2000 and 2001 tax
liabilities.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008