- 7 -
of collection actions, and collection alternatives. Sec.
6330(c)(2)(A). The person may challenge the existence or amount
of the underlying tax, however, only if he did not receive any
statutory notice of deficiency for the tax liability or did not
otherwise have an opportunity to dispute the tax liability. Sec.
6330(c)(2)(B).
Where the validity of the underlying tax liability is
properly in issue, the Court will review the matter de novo.
Where the validity of the underlying tax is not properly at
issue, however, the Court will review the Commissioner’s
administrative determination for abuse of discretion. Sego v.
Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000); Goza v. Commissioner, 114
T.C. 176, 181-182 (2000).
Petitioner has not challenged the underlying tax liability
in his petition or any other filing. Accordingly, we review
respondent’s determination for abuse of discretion.
During the Appeals hearing, the only issue petitioner raised
was the possibility of collection alternatives. However,
petitioner failed to provide Ms. Craca with the requisite
documentation, including Form 433-A. Additionally, petitioner
failed to file tax returns for taxable years 2001, 2002, and
2003. Finally, petitioner never submitted a collection
alternative for Ms. Craca to consider. On the basis of the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011