- 4 -
from contesting the existence or amount of the underlying
liability in this section 6330 proceeding.3 Since that is the
only challenge that petitioner has made to the proposed
collection action, respondent’s determination to proceed with
collection is upheld.
Decision will be entered
for respondent.
3 The underlying liability arose from respondent’s rejection
of petitioner’s claims for head of household filing status,
personal exemptions, and earned income and child tax credits.
Even though petitioner did not have the right to raise the
existence or amount of the underlying liability before the
Appeals officer, the Appeals officer did give petitioner a
telephonic hearing and considered and rejected petitioner’s
claims regarding the underlying liability.
In respondent’s pretrial memorandum and statements at trial,
respondent’s counsel stated that petitioner failed to provide any
of the documents that the Appeals officer requested. Petitioner
and his son’s mother (Ms. Chung) testified that they did provide
documents. The administrative file contains some documents that
petitioner submitted in attempting to prove that he supported his
son and Ms. Chung and that they both lived with him during 2004.
After conducting a telephonic hearing, the Appeals officer
rejected petitioner’s position on the grounds that he did not
submit any documentation and that the testimony of petitioner was
not credible. We had the opportunity to see and hear the
testimony of petitioner and Ms. Chung and found their testimony
to be credible. Because, as previously explained, petitioner
received a notice of deficiency, see sec. 6330(c)(2)(B), he has
no “right” to further consideration of the underlying liability
by an Appeals officer. However, we believe it might be in the
best interests of good tax administration for respondent to give
further consideration to petitioner’s claims. In any event,
petitioner still has the option of paying the tax and instituting
a refund claim.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5
Last modified: March 27, 2008