Robert L. Perkins - Page 15




                                       - 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