- 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
(2000).
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
parties.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007