- 8 -
liability if he or she did not receive a statutory notice of
deficiency with respect to the underlying tax liability or did
not otherwise have an opportunity to dispute that liability.
Sec. 6330(c)(2)(B).
Section 6330(c)(3) provides that the determination of the
Appeals officer shall take into consideration the verification
under section 6330(c)(1), the issues raised by the taxpayer, and
whether the proposed collection action balances the need for the
efficient collection of taxes with the legitimate concern of the
taxpayer that any collection action be no more intrusive than
necessary. If the taxpayer is dissatisfied with the
determination made after the hearing, judicial review of the
determination, such as that sought in this case, is available.
See generally Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 179-181 (2000).
Where the validity of the underlying tax liability is at
issue, the Court will review the matter de novo. Davis v.
Commissioner, 115 T.C. 35, 39 (2000). Where the taxpayer
challenges the assessment procedures of the case, the Court will
review the matter for abuse of discretion. Sego v. Commissioner,
114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000); Goza v. Commissioner, supra. In order
to prevail under abuse of discretion, a taxpayer must prove that
the Commissioner exercised this discretion arbitrarily,
capriciously, or without sound basis in fact or law. Woodral v.
Commissioner, 112 T.C. 19, 23 (1999).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007