- 40 -
1979), affg. 67 T.C. 352 (1976). In such a case, Congress can cure
any error made by the Court, and until it does the bar and the
public are justified in expecting the Court, except in the most
egregious cases, not to depart from the previous interpretation.
Hesselink v. Commissioner, 97 T.C. 94, 100 (1991); Burnet v.
Coronado Oil & Gas Co., 285 U.S. 393, 406-408 (1932) (Brandeis, J.,
dissenting).
Additionally, in illustrating the provisions relating to our
jurisdiction, the Temporary Treasury Regulations provide:
Q-F5. What issue or issues may the taxpayer raise before
the Tax Court or before a district court if the taxpayer
disagrees with the Notice of Determination?
A-F5. In seeking Tax Court or district court review of
Appeal’s Notice of Determination, the taxpayer can only
ask the court to consider an issue that was raised in the
taxpayer’s CDP hearing.
Sec. 301.6330-1T(f)(2) Q&A-F5, Temporary Proced. & Admin. Regs., 64
Fed. Reg. 3412 (Jan. 22, 1999) (emphasis added). Thus, if there is
no hearing there are no issues for us to review.
Section 6330(e) further demonstrates the problems associated
with taking jurisdiction when a taxpayer did not receive a section
6330 hearing. Section 6330(e)(1) provides that “if a hearing is
requested under subsection (a)(3)(B), the levy actions which are
the subject of the requested hearing * * * shall be suspended for
the period during which such hearing, and appeals therein, are
pending.” Collection, therefore, cannot proceed until there has
Page: Previous 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011