- 10 -
warrant further consideration of the merits of its case by the
Appeals Office or this Court. Petitioner focused its argument on
the fact that it was not provided a face-to-face hearing, nor
Form 4340 with a 23C date prior to the issuance of the notice of
determination, as requested. The Court concludes that all
pertinent issues relating to the underlying corporate tax
liability and the propriety of the collection determination can
be decided based on the present record.
III. Standard of Review
At issue in this case is respondent’s right to collect
petitioner’s self-determined tax liability for 2000 (i.e., the
amount set forth on petitioner’s filed 2000 Form 1120-X). A
taxpayer’s challenge to his self-determined tax liability at an
Appeals Office hearing constitutes a permissible challenge to the
underlying tax liability under section 6330(c)(2)(B). Montgomery
v. Commissioner, 122 T.C. 1, 9 (2004). Petitioner contends that
this Court should review the instant case de novo, stating: “The
Petitioner filed the 1120 tax return and self-assessed the tax
without any judicial determination.” However, petitioner is not
disputing the accuracy of its self-determined tax liability. See
supra note 4. Instead, petitioner argues that it should have had
a face-to-face hearing, with which the Court has already
indicated its disagreement, and, as discussed and addressed
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007