Warren R. Follum - Page 12




                                       - 12 -                                         
          of collection actions, and collection alternatives.  Sec.                   
          6330(c)(2)(A).  The person may challenge the existence or amount            
          of the underlying tax, however, only if he or she did not receive           
          any statutory notice of deficiency for the tax liability or did             
          not otherwise have an opportunity to dispute the tax liability.             
          Sec. 6330(c)(2)(B).                                                         
               Where the validity of the underlying tax liability is                  
          properly in issue, the Court will review the matter de novo.                
          Where the validity of the underlying tax is not properly at                 
          issue, however, the Court will review the Commissioner’s                    
          administrative determination for abuse of discretion.  Sego v.              
          Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000); Goza v. Commissioner, 114           
          T.C. 176, 181-182 (2000).                                                   
               Petitioner did not receive the notices of deficiency                   
          relating to his tax years 1990 through 1993 until after the                 
          expiration of the 90-day period to petition this Court although             
          the notices were sent to his last known address.2  Follum v.                
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-474.  Respondent has not argued               
          that petitioner had the opportunity to challenge the correctness            
          of his tax liability by petitioning this Court from the notices             
          of deficiency.  We conclude that petitioner’s underlying tax                
          liability for 1990 through 1993 is properly in issue.                       

               2We note that the reason petitioner did not receive the                
          notices of deficiency is that petitioner failed to inform                   
          respondent of a change in his address.                                      






Page:  Previous  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007