- 15 -
706 (1994) (hereafter, sections of which are cited APA), provides
the basic structure of Federal administrative law. As discussed
immediately below, I believe that various provisions of the APA
inform our authority (and our jurisdiction) under section
6330(d)(1)(A). I believe that the APA is persuasive evidence for
the proposition that the failure to accord a taxpayer a section
6330(b) hearing does not deprive us of jurisdiction to review a
section 6330(c)(3) determination.
B. Administrative Procedure Act
Section 6330(d)(1) establishes our jurisdiction to consider
an appeal from an adverse section 6330(c)(3) determination:
“[T]he Tax Court shall have jurisdiction with respect to such
matter”. Sec. 6330(d)(1)(A). Section 6330(d)(1) does not,
however, specify our remedial powers in such situation.3 Such
3 With respect to court review of an Appeals officer’s sec.
6330(c)(3) determination, the legislative history of sec. 6330
states that, where the validity of the tax liability was properly
at issue in the sec. 6330 hearing, the reviewing court is to
review such liability on a de novo basis and, with respect to
other aspects of the Appeals officer’s determination, the
reviewing court is to review such aspects for abuse of
discretion. See H. Conf. Rept. 105-599 (1998), 1998-3 C.B. 747,
which accompanied H.R. 2676, 105th Cong. (1998), the bill that,
when enacted, became the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring
and Reform Act of 1998, Pub. L. 105-206, 112 Stat. 685. Sec.
3401(b) of such act added sec. 6330; see also Goza v.
Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 181-182 (2000) (referring to
legislative history). The conference report does not specify
that, if we find an abuse of discretion, we are to fashion an
alternative.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011