- 10 -
issued. See sec. 6201(a)(1). Petitioner therefore could have
challenged the existence or amount of the underlying tax
liability, including any penalty,1 during the Appeals Office
hearing. Petitioner, however, did not do so, and he is
accordingly precluded from challenging the underlying tax
liability in this proceeding. Sec. 301.6320-1(f)(2), Q&A-F5,
Proced. & Admin. Regs.; see Miller v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 582,
589 n.2 (2000), affd. 21 Fed. Appx. 160 (4th Cir. 2001); Magana
v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 488, 493-494 (2002); see also sec.
301.6330-1(f)(2), Q&A-F5, Proced. & Admin. Regs.
Petitioner’s Alternative to Collection
The only issue petitioner raised at the hearing and in his
petition was his desire for respondent’s acceptance of an OIC as
an alternative to the “levy”. A petition for review of a
collection action must clearly specify the errors alleged to have
been committed in the notice of determination. Rule 331(b)(4).
Any issues not raised in the assignments of error are deemed to
be conceded by petitioner. Rule 331(b)(4); see Goza v.
Commissioner, supra at 183; see also Lunsford v. Commissioner,
117 T.C. 183, 185-186 (2001).
Under section 7122, the Secretary is authorized to
compromise civil or criminal tax liabilities. An offer to
1The assessed tax liability includes any additions to tax.
Sec. 6201(a); sec. 301.6201-1(a), Proced. & Admin. Regs.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011