- 10 -
T.C. 282, 284 (1972).6 In contrast, respondent contends that the
APA applies to our proceedings under section 6015(f). As
discussed next, we find no convincing reason to treat our
determinations under section 6015(f) and section 6213(a)
differently for purposes of applicability of the APA.
We make redeterminations under section 6213(a) de novo.
O’Dwyer v. Commissioner, supra at 580; Greenberg’s Express, Inc.
v. Commissioner, 62 T.C. 324, 327-28 (1974); see Clapp v.
Commissioner, 875 F.2d 1396, 1403 (9th Cir. 1989); Raheja v.
Commissioner, 725 F.2d 64, 66 (7th Cir. 1984), affg. T.C. Memo.
1981-690; Jones v. Commissioner, 97 T.C. 7, 18 (1991) (“a trial
before this Court is a proceeding de novo; hence our
determination of a taxpayer’s liability must be based on the
merits of the case and not on any previous record developed at
the administrative level”). Congress has used both “determine”
and “redetermination” in establishing the jurisdiction of the Tax
Court. We see no material difference between the words
6 In O’Dwyer v. Commissioner, 266 F.2d 575, 580 (4th Cir.
1959), affg. 28 T.C. 698 (1957), the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit held that 5 U.S.C. sec. 554(a)(1) does not
apply to deficiency determinations in this Court because in those
cases we are not reviewing a record of a formal proceeding; i.e.,
there is no hearing transcript, witness testimony, or exhibits
introduced by the parties. To emphasize that the Tax Court is a
trial court, the Court in O’Dwyer pointed out that the Tax Court
is empowered to prescribe rules of practice and procedure, and is
required to apply the rules of evidence applicable to nonjury
trials in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
and to make findings of fact upon such evidence. Secs. 6213,
7453, 7459.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011