- 32 -
Revenue Officer Baustert had the requisite authority to file the
nominee NFTL without the written approval of his direct
supervisor; (3) whether respondent abused his discretion by
filing a nominee NFTL after he had already caused an NFTL to be
filed against petitioner for 1993; and (4) whether respondent
abused his discretion by asserting a nominee theory with respect
to certain real property, the existence and ownership of which
was known to respondent at least 4 years before the nominee NFTL
was filed. With the exception of the issue in (1) above, which
challenges the adequacy of the notice of determination,
petitioner should have raised the above-listed issues with the
hearing officer at the hearing so that the Appeals Office could
address the issues in its notice of determination. Petitioner
did not do so, and, as a result, the notice of determination did
not address those issues. We decline, therefore, to consider
issues that could have been raised, but were not raised, at the
hearing and addressed in the notice of determination. Magana v.
Commissioner, supra.
With respect to petitioner’s challenge to the notice of
determination, petitioner offered no evidence at trial or
argument on brief to support his contention that the Appeals team
manager whose name appears on the letter portion of the notice of
determination did not make the determinations in the notice.
Moreover, petitioner’s argument misconstrues the notice of
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011