Gerard R. Fitzgerald - Page 6
- 5 -
Whether an abuse of discretion has occurred depends upon whether
the exercise of discretion is without sound basis in fact or law.
See Freije v. Commissioner, 125 T.C. 14, 23 (2005).
As previously mentioned, petitioner does not challenge the
appropriateness of the notice of lien with respect to the taxable
years at issue. Petitioner disputes only the levy on his Social
Security benefits for his unpaid Federal income tax liability for
the 1990 taxable year. Petitioner contends he did not receive
prelevy notice and an opportunity to be heard, as required under
Respondent appears to acknowledge that petitioner’s Social
Security benefits were levied upon. Respondent’s records
indicate, however, that the levy was made with respect to
petitioner’s unpaid tax liability for the taxable year 1990,
which is not a year at issue. Petitioner did not dispute that
the levy pertained solely to 1990. Because we do not have a
notice of determination regarding the levy with respect to that
year, we do not have jurisdiction to review the levy. See sec.
6330(d); Orum v. Commissioner, 123 T.C. 1, 7-8 (2004), affd. 412
F.3d 819 (7th Cir. 2005).
Petitioner has not set forth any other arguments concerning
respondent’s determination, such as a spousal defense or an offer
of a collection alternative. Nor has petitioner alleged that the
Secretary failed to meet the requirements of any applicable law
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Last modified: November 10, 2007