- 8 -
issue previously raised and considered in a hearing or other
administrative or judicial proceeding in which the taxpayer
participated meaningfully. Sec. 6330(c)(4) (preclusion rule).
The resulting determination must take into consideration the need
for efficient tax collection as well as the legitimate concerns
of the taxpayer that any collection action be no more intrusive
than necessary. Sec. 6330(c)(3)(C). This Court has jurisdiction
to review such determination upon a timely taxpayer request.
Sec. 6330(d). Where the underlying liability is not properly at
issue, we review respondent’s determination for abuse of
discretion. Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 181-182 (2000).
After conducting administrative proceedings, on February 11,
1999, Appeals sustained respondent’s denial of the extension
request. At the hearing, the estate sought review of the
Appeals’ denial. Respondent contends that, pursuant to the
section 6330(c)(4) preclusion rule, the estate may not raise and
respondent is not required to address the Appeals’ denial. The
estate contends that issues raised in proceedings conducted
before January 19, 1999, section 6330’s effective date, are not
subject to the section 6330(c)(4) preclusion rule.
We agree with respondent that there is no authority for the
estate’s contention that section 6330(c)(4) limits the definition
of a “previous administrative * * * proceeding” to one occurring
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011