- 7 -
If the validity of the underlying tax liability is not at issue,
we review the Commissioner’s determination for abuse of
discretion. Sego v. Commissioner, supra at 610.
We have previously held that this Court has jurisdiction in
a levy proceeding instituted pursuant to section 6330(d)(1) to
determine whether a taxpayer’s unpaid tax liabilities were
discharged in bankruptcy. Swanson v. Commissioner, 121 T.C. 111,
120-121 (2003); Washington v. Commissioner, 120 T.C. 114, 120-121
(2003). In Washington, we did not specifically address the
appropriate standard of review to apply when determining whether
a taxpayer’s tax liabilities were discharged in bankruptcy where,
as in the matter before us, the taxpayer has not received a
notice of deficiency.5 For the reasons discussed infra, our
review of the evidence causes us to sustain Settlement Officer
Clark’s determination to proceed with collection regardless of
whether we apply an abuse of discretion or a de novo standard of
review. Petitioner bears the burden of proof. See Rule 142(a).
Petitioner argued that respondent erred in applying payments
petitioner made pursuant to an alleged installment agreement to
petitioner’s 1985 tax liability because the alleged installment
agreement required that respondent apply petitioner’s payments to
5 The record does not reveal whether, in petitioner’s 1993
bankruptcy case, respondent submitted any proofs of claims for
the liabilities in issue. Accordingly, Kendricks v.
Commissioner, 124 T.C. 69 (2005), does not apply to the matter
before us.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007