- 3 -
Respondent contends that this case should be remanded
because he did not sufficiently analyze the merits of
petitioner’s claim under section 6015(f). In support of his
request, respondent relies on Natl. Nutritional Foods Association
v. Weinberger, 512 F.2d 688, 701 (2d Cir. 1975), Camp v. Pitts,
411 U.S. 138, 143 (1973), and Asarco, Inc. v. EPA, 616 F.2d 1153,
1160 (9th Cir. 1980). Those cases, however, are examples where
courts, in reviewing administrative action, remanded for further
factual determinations that were deemed necessary to complete an
inadequate administrative record or to make an adequate one.
In certain specific cases where statutory provisions reserve
jurisdiction to the Commissioner, a case can also be remanded to
the Commissioner’s Appeals Office. Under sections 6320(c) and
6330(d)(1), this Court may consider certain collection actions
taken or proposed by the Commissioner’s Appeals Office. Under
paragraph (2) of section 6330(d), the Commissioner’s Appeals
Office retains jurisdiction with respect to the determination
made under section 6330. As part of the process, a case may be
remanded to the Appeals Office for further consideration. See,
e.g., Parker v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-226.
The situation is different, however, in a section 6015
proceeding, which is sometimes referred to as a “stand alone”
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011