- 5 -
collection activity, including spousal defenses, challenges to
the appropriateness of the Commissioner’s intended collection
action, and alternative means of collection. Secs. 6320(b) and
(c); 6330(c); see Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 609 (2000);
Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 180 (2000).
The taxpayer may raise challenges “to the existence or
amount of the underlying tax liability”, however, only if he “did
not receive any statutory notice of deficiency for such tax
liability or did not otherwise have an opportunity to dispute
such tax liability.” Sec. 6330(c)(2)(B).
Where the validity of the tax liability is not properly part
of the appeal, the taxpayer may challenge the determination of
the Appeals officer for abuse of discretion. Sego v.
Commissioner, supra at 609-610; Goza v. Commissioner, supra at
181-182.
Here, petitioner received a statutory notice of deficiency
for 2002. Although he filed his petition with the Court beyond
the statutory period, he has not alleged or proven that the
notice was not received in time for him to have filed timely.
See Kuykendall v. Commissioner, 129 T.C. ___ (2007); sec.
301.6330-1(e)(3), Q&A-E2, Proced. & Admin. Regs. As a matter of
law, petitioner is precluded from raising a challenge “to the
existence or amount of the underlying tax liability”. See sec.
6330(c)(2)(B).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007