- 9 -
need for the efficient collection of taxes with the legitimate
concern of the person [involved] that any collection action be no
more intrusive than necessary.” Sec. 6330(c)(3)(C).
After the IRS Appeals hearing process, section 6330 gives us
jurisdiction to review the Appeals officer’s determination. In
an appeal to this Court pursuant to section 6330(d), a taxpayer
may raise in his petition any issues that he raised at the
Appeals hearing. See sec. 301.6330-1(f)(2), Q&A-F5, Proced. &
Admin. Regs. Where the underlying tax liability is properly at
issue, we review de novo the Appeals officer’s determination with
respect to the existence and amount of tax liability. Sego v.
Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000); Goza v. Commissioner, 114
T.C. 176, 181-182 (2000). When the underlying tax liability is
not properly at issue, we review the Appeals officer’s
determination using an abuse of discretion standard. Sego v.
Commissioner, supra at 610; Goza v. Commissioner, supra at 181-
182.
The IRS is generally prohibited from assessing and
proceeding with collection of a deficiency in tax until a notice
of deficiency is issued and either: (1) The period during which
the taxpayer may request judicial redetermination of the
deficiency expires; or (2) if a petition is filed with the Tax
Court, a decision of the Tax Court redetermining the deficiency
becomes final. Sec. 6213(a). Petitioner is challenging the
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007