- 15 -
have an “opportunity to dispute” the underlying tax liability
within the meaning of section 6330(c)(2)(B) by virtue of an
Appeals review that was not completed until after a hearing was
requested under section 6330. To hold otherwise would permit the
Commissioner to cut off a taxpayer's right to judicial review of
his challenge to the underlying tax liability by the simple
expedient of postponing the section 6330 hearing until after a
request for Appeals consideration, pending when the collection
action was initiated, was completed by Appeals.9 We therefore
conclude that the Appeals employee erred in refusing to consider
petitioner's challenge to the underlying tax liability;
petitioner's underlying liability was properly at issue in his
section 6330 hearing and is consequently subject to de novo
review in this Court. See, e.g., Goza v. Commissioner, supra at
181-182.
C. De Novo Review of Underlying Tax Liability
Having decided that petitioner was entitled to challenge his
underlying liability in the hearing and obtain judicial review
thereof, we proceed to consider de novo the merits of
petitioner's challenges. At trial, we gave petitioner an
9 We note in this regard that the same Appeals officer who
considered and denied any relief with respect to petitioner's
Appeals request also signed off on the notice of determination
which took the position that petitioner was precluded from
challenging the underlying liability in the sec. 6330 proceeding
because of “prior” Appeals consideration.
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007