- 7 -
Section 6330(d)(1) grants the Court jurisdiction to review
the determination made by the Appeals officer at the hearing.
Where the validity of the underlying tax liability is properly at
issue, the Court will review the matter de novo. Sego v.
Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000). Where the underlying tax
liability is not properly at issue, the Court will review the
administrative determination of the Appeals Office for abuse of
discretion. Lunsford v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 183, 185 (2001);
Sego v. Commissioner, supra at 610; Goza v. Commissioner, 114
T.C. 176, 182 (2000).
A taxpayer is precluded from contesting the existence or
amount of his underlying tax liability at his section 6330
hearing unless the taxpayer failed to receive a notice of
deficiency for the tax in question or did not otherwise have an
earlier opportunity to dispute the tax liability. Sec.
6330(c)(2)(B); see also Sego v. Commissioner, supra at 609. For
purposes of section 6330(c)(2)(B), receipt of a notice of
deficiency means receipt in time to petition this Court for
redetermination of the deficiency asserted in such notice. Sec.
301.6330-1(e)(3), Q&A-E2, Proced. & Admin. Regs. Section
6330(c)(2)(B) indicates that receipt of the notice of deficiency
by the taxpayer is required. See Sego v. Commissioner, supra at
610-611; see also Sapp v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-104;
Calderone v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-240; Tatum v.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008