- 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 1995Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: November 10, 2007