- 9 -
Under section 6330(d)(1), respondent’s notices of
determination generally are to be reviewed only for an abuse of
discretion. Lunsford v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 183, 185 (2001);
Nicklaus v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 117, 120 (2001); Davis v.
Commissioner, 115 T.C. 35, 39 (2000); Sego v. Commissioner, 114
T.C. 604, 609-610 (2000); Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176,
181-182 (2000) (citing H. Conf. Rept. 105-599, at 266 (1998),
1998-3 C.B. 755, 1020); MRCA Info. Servs. v. United States, 145
F. Supp. 2d 194, 198 (D. Conn. 2000).
Under that standard of review, generally it would be
anomalous and improper for us to conclude that respondent’s
Appeals Office abused its discretion under section 6330(c)(3) in
failing to grant relief, or in failing to consider arguments,
issues, or other matter not raised by taxpayers or not otherwise
brought to the attention of respondent’s Appeals Office. McCoy
Enters., Inc. v. Commissioner, 58 F.3d 557, 563 (10th Cir. 1995)
(“The Tax Court * * * cannot find an abuse of discretion where
there is no evidence that the Commissioner exercised any
discretion at all”), affg. T.C. Memo. 1992-693; Estate of Chimblo
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-535, affd. 177 F.3d 119 (2d Cir.
1999); see also secs. 301.6320-1(f)(2), Q&A-F5, 301.6330-1(f)(2),
Q&A-F5, Proced. & Admin. Regs.
Accordingly, in our review for an abuse of discretion under
section 6330(d)(1) of respondent’s determination, generally we
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011