Sam E. Scott - Page 12




                                       - 12 -                                         
         6330(c)(2); Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000); Goza             
         v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 180-181 (2000).  Moreover,                    
         petitioner would also be barred from litigating a second time his            
         1991 income tax liability based on the principles of res                     
         judicata.                                                                    
              Our consideration in this case is therefore limited solely              
         to the question of whether there was an abuse of discretion in               
         respondent’s determination to proceed with collection action and             
         in particular to file an NFTL.  Where the underlying tax                     
         liability is not at issue, the Court will review the Appeals                 
         officer’s determination for abuse of discretion.  Sego v.                    
         Commissioner, supra.  In this case, petitioner’s 1991 tax                    
         liability was assessed in accord with the decision of this Court.            
         Property and rights to property of petitioner become subject to a            
         lien arising in favor of the United States at the time of the                
         assessment because petitioner failed to pay the tax liability                
         after notice and demand for payment.  Secs. 6321 and 6322.  The              
         lien is not entitled to priority5 with respect to the claims of              
         certain other creditors of petitioner until an NFTL is filed.                
         Sec. 6323(a).                                                                
              As of January 31, 2006, petitioner’s outstanding balance due            
         for his 1991 tax liability, including penalties and interest to              

               5 “Priority” used in this context refers to respondent’s               
          claim or right to payment vis-a-vis other creditors’ claims                 
          against petitioner’s property or rights to property.                        





Page:  Previous  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007