ROLAND D. VAN FOSSEN, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 11269-99L.
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
Filed May 18, 2000.
T.C. Memo. 2000-163
GERBER, Judge
Roland D. Van Fossen, pro se. Usha Ravi, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
GERBER, Judge: Petitioner filed a petition seeking relief from rеspondent‘s decision to pursue collection activity. Petitioner is seeking solely to challenge the underlying deficiencies. Respondent moved to dismiss this proceeding for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that petitioner is prеcluded from questioning the underlying deficiency determinations because
Background
Respondent issued statutory notices of deficiency to рetitioner on November 14, 1996, and April 16, 1998, determining income tax deficiencies and penalties for the 1990, 1991, 1992, and 1993 tax years. Petitioner failed to petition this Court with respect to either notice, and respondent assessed the incomе tax deficiencies and penalties. On March 2, 1999, respondent sent petitioner a Final Notice--Notice of Intent To Levy and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing. On or about March 8, 1999, respondent filed a Notice of Federal Tax Lien, which was recorded on March 16, 1999. On March 11, 1999, respondent provided to petitioner a Notice of Federal Tax Lien Filing and Your Right to a Hearing Under
On May 20, 1999, respondent issued a Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Sections 6320 and/or 6330, approving the lien and levy actions and denying relief to petitioner. Petitioner filed a Petition for Lien or Levy Action Under Code Section 6320(c) or 6330(d),1 seeking relief from rеspondent‘s collection activity. Respondent moved to dismiss
Discussion
Resрondent seeks to have this matter dismissed, contending that this Court does not have subjеct matter jurisdiction because petitioner, under
The question of оur jurisdiction in this type of situation was recently addressed in Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. ___ (2000). In that case, we held thаt we have jurisdiction to review respondent‘s administrative determinations in lien and levy matters involving circumstances similar to those that we consider in this proceeding. See id. at ___ (slip op. at 10-11). As in Goza, the only grounds raised by petitioner here concern the underlying tax liabilities. In that regard, petitioner contends that the underlying determinations аre fraudulent and that respondent had no authority to make the assessments. These
Accordingly, respondent‘s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction will be denied, and petitiоner‘s action will be dismissed for petitioner‘s failure to state a claim upоn which relief can be granted.
To reflect the forgoing,
An appropriate order and decision will be entered.
