Richard M. Downing - Page 14

                                       - 14 -                                         
          liability is properly at issue, we review that issue de novo.               
          See Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 609-610 (2000).  Other              
          issues we review for abuse of discretion.  Id.                              
          B.   Petitioner’s Challenge to the Notice of Determination                  
               Petitioner challenges respondent’s final notice of                     
          determination with respect to the notice of Federal tax lien                
          filing for his 1995 and 1999 tax years.  Petitioner contends that           
          respondent’s assessment of his 1995 income tax was time barred              
          because he and Astrid Downing filed their 1995 joint amended                
          return in October 1996 but assessment did not occur until 2001,             
          well beyond the expiration of the 3-year limitations period of              
          section 6501(a).6  Respondent contends that section 6330(c)(2)(B)           
          precludes petitioner from raising this issue in this proceeding.            
               1.  Limitation on Challenging Underlying Liability                     
               Section 6330(c)(2) prescribes the matters that a person may            
          raise at an Appeals Office hearing, including spousal defenses,             
          challenges to the appropriateness of the Commissioner’s intended            

               6 Petitioner does not dispute the assessment of his 1999               
          income tax, which was based on amounts reported on but not paid             
          with his 1999 return.  In his petition, petitioner’s prayer for             
          relief included a request that the Court order respondent to                
          offset any unpaid balance on his 1999 account by application of             
          certain amounts that respondent has allegedly collected from                
          petitioner and to refund certain remaining amounts.  Petitioner             
          has not raised this claim for relief in his trial memorandum or             
          on brief.  We deem petitioner to have abandoned any such claim              
          for relief.  In any event, this Court lacks jurisdiction in a               
          collection review proceeding to order a refund or credit of tax.            
          Greene-Thapedi v. Commissioner, 126 T.C. 1 (2006).                          

Page:  Previous  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007