- 10 -
consider only arguments, issues, and other matter that were
raised at the collection hearing or otherwise brought to the
attention of the Appeals Office.
In this case, because petitioner’s alleged longstanding
illness and hardship were not raised as an issue and were not
otherwise brought to respondent’s attention in connection with
petitioner’s collection hearing with respondent’s Appeals Office,
petitioner may not now raise hardship for the first time before
this Court. Petitioner herein has not established any credible
basis for us to make an exception to the above general rule. See
The Inner Office, Inc. v. United States, No. 3:00-CV-2576-L, 2001
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20617, at *5-6 (Magis. N.D. Tex., Dec. 11, 2001)
(“In seeking * * * [judicial] review of a Notice of
Determination, the taxpayer can only ask the court to consider an
issue that was raised in the taxpayer’s * * * [collection]
hearing.”), adopted on this issue 89 AFTR 2d 2002-1311 (N.D. Tex.
2002); see also Miller v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 582, 589 n.2
(2000) (“we would not consider * * * [taxpayer’s] alternative
request * * * because the record does not establish that he
raised that issue at his Appeals Office hearing”), affd.
per curiam 21 Fed. Appx. 160 (4th Cir. 2001); Sego v.
Commissioner, supra at 612 (“Matters raised after a hearing do
not reflect on whether the determinations that are the basis of
this petition were an abuse of discretion.”).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011