- 6 -
supra at 610; Goza v. Commissioner, supra at 181. The abuse of
discretion standard requires the Court to decide whether
respondent’s determination was arbitrary, capricious, or without
sound basis in fact or law. Woodral v. Commissioner, 112 T.C.
19, 23 (1999); Keller v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-166;
Fowler v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-163.
Petitioner received a notice of deficiency for each year at
issue but filed a petition with this Court only for 1996, 1997,
and 1998, which resulted in a decision for respondent.
Petitioner did not file a petition to redetermine the deficiency
for 1999, 2000, 2001, or 2002. Therefore, petitioner cannot
contest the validity of the underlying income tax liability for
any of the years at issue, and this Court will review
respondent’s determination for abuse of discretion.
Because petitioner is barred from contesting his underlying
liability for the years at issue, he was permitted at the hearing
only to raise other matters, e.g., to challenge the
appropriateness of the intended method of collection, offer
alternatives to collection, or raise a spousal defense to
collection. See sec. 6330(c)(2)(A).
Petitioner contends that before respondent may proceed with
the lien action, respondent must demonstrate that the underlying
tax assessments for the years at issue were valid. Petitioner
argues that respondent’s Appeals Office failed to verify or prove
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007