- 8 -
reflecting the 15-year-old liabilities, and that he wanted to fix
the matter. Petitioner’s challenge lacks any substance, and the
underlying tax liabilities stand as assessed by respondent.
Levy Action
Having established that petitioner’s tax liabilities were as
determined by respondent under our de novo review standard, we
now review respondent’s determination to proceed with collection
under an abuse of discretion standard. Under this standard, a
determination will be affirmed unless action was taken that was
arbitrary or capricious, lacks sound basis in fact, or is not
justifiable in light of the facts and circumstances. Mailman v.
Commissioner, 91 T.C. 1079, 1084 (1988).
In the case before us, petitioner did not expressly
challenge the Appeals officer’s determination with respect to
collection, so we must first decide whether this determination is
even properly before the Court. In his petition, petitioner
checked the box for redetermination of a deficiency and
explicitly only raised the issue of his tax liabilities. While
Rule 331(b)(4) provides that any issue not raised in the petition
is deemed conceded, the circumstances in this case allow us to
consider the issue. Consideration of the issue is proper so long
as petitioner’s failure to provide notice to respondent did not
prejudice respondent. See Pagel, Inc. v. Commissioner, 91 T.C.
200, 212 (1988), affd. 905 F.2d 1190 (8th Cir. 1990); Martin v.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007