Peter P. Baltic and Karen R. Baltic - Page 10

                                       - 10 -                                         
          amount of the assessment."  Sec. 301.6203-1, Proced. & Admin.               
          Regs.  Siquieros was arguing only that she herself shouldn’t be             
          liable for her employer’s failure to pay over the taxes because             
          she was only a secretary.                                                   
               The Baltics are not arguing that the IRS is going after the            
          wrong person.  Neither Baltic, for example, is claiming innocent-           
          spouse relief; they dispute only the amount of tax due.  Which              
          is, of course, exactly what they could have challenged by filing            
          a petition when they got their notice of deficiency.  We                    
          therefore unequivocally hold that a challenge to the amount of              
          the tax liability made in the form of an OIC-DATL by a taxpayer             
          who has received a notice of deficiency is a challenge to the               
          underlying tax liability.  Because the Baltics already had their            
          chance to challenge that liability, section 6330(c)(2)(B) bars              
          them from challenging it again.8                                            
               That leaves only the settlement officer's refusal to wait              
          until the IRS reviewed the OIC-DATL and completed its audit                 

               8 The Baltics also argue that section 301.6330-1(e)(3), Q&A-           
          E9, Proced. & Admin. Regs., grants discretion to IRS employees to           
          consider challenges to liability despite section 6330(c)(2)(B)              
          and ask us to review for abuse of discretion the decision by the            
          settlement officer not to review their liability.  We've already            
          held that the Code itself limits the power of both the                      
          Commissioner and our Court to reconsider liability issues.                  
          Nichols v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2007-5.  Here, the                      
          determination did not address the precluded issue of liability,             
          and the Baltics’ challenge amounts to nothing more than a                   
          roundabout effort to challenge what they’re prevented from                  
          challenging on appeal.                                                      

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: March 27, 2008