Edward G. Castleman - Page 5

                                        - 5 -                                         
          legitimate concern of the taxpayer that the collection action be            
          no more intrusive than necessary.  See sec. 6330(c)(3).                     
               Section 6330(d) provides for judicial review of the                    
          administrative determination in the Tax Court or a Federal                  
          District Court, as may be appropriate.  Where the validity of the           
          underlying tax liability is properly at issue, the Court will               
          review the matter de novo.  Where the validity of the underlying            
          tax liability is not properly at issue, however, the Court will             
          review the Commissioner’s administrative determination for abuse            
          of discretion.  Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 181-182                 
               Petitioner seeks to challenge only the underlying tax                  
          liability.  The parties agree, however, that petitioner received            
          a notice of deficiency for 19962 and a notice of intent to levy             
          for 1996 and 1997.  The receipt of a notice of deficiency                   

               2  Petitioner stipulated that he received the notice of                
          deficiency, but at trial petitioner was unsure whether he had               
          received the notice or some other type of correspondence.  In               
          some circumstances, the Court may relieve a party from being                
          bound by a stipulation where stipulated facts are clearly                   
          contrary to facts disclosed by the record.  See Rule 91(e);                 
          Jasionowski v. Commissioner, 66 T.C. 312, 318 (1976).  Petitioner           
          conceded, however, that he may have received a notice of                    
          deficiency.  In addition, the notice of determination indicates             
          the Appeals officer verified that a notice of deficiency had been           
          issued.  While respondent’s failure to produce the notice of                
          deficiency at trial raises an issue as to whether a notice of               
          deficiency was in fact issued, we do not conclude that the                  
          stipulated facts clearly contradict the facts disclosed by the              
          record.  See Jasionowski v. Commissioner, supra.  Accordingly, we           
          will not disturb the stipulation executed and filed by the                  

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007