- 15 -
collection action, and possible alternative means of collection.
At the hearing, the person may challenge the existence or amount
of the underlying tax liability only if the person did not
receive a notice of deficiency or did not otherwise have an
opportunity to dispute the liability. Sec. 6330(c)(2)(B); see
Sego v. Commissioner, supra at 609; Goza v. Commissioner, 114
T.C. 176, 180-181 (2000). The regulations define a prior
opportunity to dispute an underlying tax liability to include an
opportunity for a conference with the Appeals Office that was
offered either before or after the assessment of the liability.
Sec. 301.6320-1(e)(3), Q&A-E2, Proced. & Admin. Regs. A taxpayer
who previously received a notice under section 6330 with respect
to the same tax and tax periods and did not request a hearing
with respect to that earlier notice has already had an
opportunity to challenge the existence or amount of the
underlying liability. Sec. 301.6320-1(e)(3), Q&A-E7, Proced. &
Admin. Regs.; see Lewis v. Commissioner, 128 T.C. 48 (2007); Bell
v. Commissioner, 126 T.C. 356, 358 (2006).
Respondent contends, and petitioner does not dispute, that
pursuant to this Court’s precedents, petitioner’s limitations
period argument constitutes a challenge to his underlying 1995
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007