- 7 -
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 in
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 has not alleged that he did not receive the
notices of deficiency. Petitioner had an opportunity to
challenge the correctness of his tax liabilities for 2000 and
2001 by petitioning this Court from the notice of deficiency but
failed to do so. Therefore, petitioner’s underlying tax
liabilities were not properly in issue. Accordingly, we review
respondent’s determination for an abuse of discretion.
Petitioner did not receive notices of deficiency for 1998
and 2002. Petitioner could have challenged the underlying
liabilities for those years. However, section 6330(c)(2) allows
the taxpayer to raise only “any relevant issue relating to the
unpaid tax or the proposed levy”, not “any” issue. Frivolous
challenges to the underlying liability are not “relevant issues”.
Hathaway v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-15.
In the instant case, the record indicates that the only
issues petitioner raised throughout the section 6320
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007