Hailu Yohannes Awlachew - Page 13




                                       - 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