- 14 -
jurisdiction to hear that appeal. If it cannot be, then we lack
jurisdiction to enjoin any collection action following our
dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.
Certainly, section 6330 entitles a taxpayer to a hearing.
See sec. 6330(a)(3)(B). It is a matter of statutory
interpretation, however, whether there can be no determination
under section 6330(c)(3) (and, thus, no basis for court review)
if there is no hearing. The review of an administrative action
of an agency is not a normal task for us. In a proceeding before
the Tax Court to redetermine a deficiency, we find facts de novo.
See sec. 6214(a); O’Dwyer v. Commissioner, 266 F.2d 575 (4th Cir.
1959), affg. 28 T.C. 698 (1957); Greenberg’s Express, Inc. v.
Commissioner, 62 T.C. 324, 327-328 (1974).2 But see, e.g.,
section 7429(b)(2)(B), providing for our review of jeopardy levy
or assessment proceedings, and section 6404(i), providing for our
review of whether respondent’s failure to abate interest was an
abuse of discretion. There is an extensive jurisprudence dealing
with court review of agency administrative actions. The
Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. secs. 551–559, 701-
2 In O’Dwyer v. Commissioner, 266 F.2d 575, 580 (4th Cir.
1959), affg. 28 T.C. 698 (1957), the Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit stated: “We agree that the Tax Court is not
subject to the Administrative Procedure Act.” That statement was
made in the context of the court’s stating that, in redetermining
a deficiency, the Tax Court is not a reviewing court, reviewing
the record of an administrative agency, but, rather, is a court
reviewing facts de novo.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011