- 11 -
below, that it should have been provided with a Form 4340 that
contained a 23C date.
It appears that petitioner’s claim does not require a
determination under section 6330(c)(2)(B) relating to the
existence or amount of the underlying tax liability entitled to
de novo review, but rather it requires a section 6330(c)(2)(A)
determination relating to an “unpaid tax” subject to review for
abuse of discretion.8 Accordingly, the Court will review the
administrative record of the levy for an abuse of discretion.9
An abuse of discretion has occurred if the “Commissioner
exercised * * * [his] discretion arbitrarily, capriciously, or
without sound basis in fact or law.” Woodral v. Commissioner,
112 T.C. 19, 23 (1999).
Federal tax assessments are formally recorded on a record of
assessment in accordance with section 6203. The Commissioner is
not required to use Form 23C in making an assessment. Roberts v.
Commissioner, 118 T.C. 365, 371 (2002), affd. 329 F.3d 1224 (11th
Cir. 2003). Furthermore, section 6330(c)(1) mandates neither
8Petitioner expressed concern with the calculation of
interest on its Federal corporate income tax. The Court notes
that its authority to redetermine interest, pursuant to sec. 7481
and Rule 261, is based on a chronology that places the resolution
of unpaid interest on a deficiency after the entry of decision.
Accordingly, the Court lacks jurisdiction to redetermine interest
at this time.
9The Court notes that it would also sustain respondent’s
determination to proceed with collection action even under a de
novo standard of review.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007