- 10 -
not receive a statutory notice of deficiency with respect to the
underlying tax liability or did not otherwise have an opportunity
to dispute that liability. Sec. 6330(c)(2)(B).
Following the hearing, the Appeals officer must determine
whether the collection action is to proceed, taking into account
the verification the Appeals officer has made, the issues raised
by the taxpayer at the hearing, and whether the collection action
“balances the need for the efficient collection of taxes with the
legitimate concern of the * * * [taxpayer] that any collection
action be no more intrusive than necessary.” Sec. 6330(c)(3).
We have jurisdiction to review such determinations where we have
jurisdiction over the type of tax involved in the case. Sec.
6330(d)(1)(A); see Iannone v. Commissioner, 122 T.C. 287, 290
(2004). Where the underlying tax liability is properly at issue,
we review the determination de novo. E.g., Goza v. Commissioner,
114 T.C. 176, 181-182 (2000). Where the underlying tax liability
is not properly at issue, we review the determination for abuse
of discretion. Id. at 182. When faced with questions of law, as
we are here (e.g., determining whether the bankruptcy proceeding
instigated by petitioners afforded petitioners the opportunity to
dispute the tax liability), the standard of review makes no
difference. Whether characterized as a review for abuse of
discretion or as a consideration "de novo" (of a question of
law), we must reject erroneous views of the law. See Cooter &
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011