- 6 -
agreement. Sec. 6330(b) and (c)(2)(A); sec. 301.6320-1(e)(1),
Proced. & Admin. Regs. A taxpayer also may challenge the
existence or amount of the underlying tax liability, including a
liability reported on the taxpayer’s original return, if the
taxpayer “did not receive any statutory notice of deficiency for
such tax liability or did not otherwise have an opportunity to
dispute such tax liability.” Sec. 6330(c)(2)(B); see also Urbano
v. Commissioner, 122 T.C. 384, 389-390 (2004); Montgomery v.
Commissioner, 122 T.C. 1, 9-10 (2004).
Section 6330(d) provides for judicial review of the
administrative determination in the Tax Court or a Federal
District Court, as may be appropriate. Where the underlying tax
liability is properly at issue, the Court will review the
Commissioner’s administrative determination de novo. Where the
validity of the underlying tax liability is not properly at
issue, however, the Court will review the determination for abuse
of discretion. Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000);
Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 181-182 (2000).
Because petitioner does not seek to challenge the underlying
tax liability, we review respondent’s determination for abuse of
discretion. See Lunsford v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 183, 185
(2001); Sego v. Commissioner, supra at 610; Goza v. Commissioner,
supra at 181-182. This standard requires the Court to decide
whether respondent’s determination was arbitrary, capricious, or
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007