- 12 -
Court, as appropriate. The taxpayer may appeal the determination
to the Tax Court, rather than a Federal District Court, if the
Tax Court generally has jurisdiction over the type of tax
involved in the case. Sec. 6330(d)(1)(A); Downing v.
Commissioner, 118 T.C. 22, 26 (2002); Landry v. Commissioner, 116
T.C. 60, 62 (2001). Section 6330(e)(1) suspends the levy action
until the conclusion of the hearing and any judicial review of
the determination.
Where the underlying tax liability is properly at issue in
the hearing, we review that issue on a de novo basis. Goza v.
Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 181-182 (2000). Where the underlying
tax liability is not at issue, however, we review the
determination to see whether there has been an abuse of
discretion. Id. In this case, the parties agree that the
underlying tax liabilities are no longer at issue; thus we review
respondent’s determination under an abuse of discretion standard.
The Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of
1998 (RRA 1998), Pub. L. 105-206, sec. 1001(a)(4), 112 Stat. 689,
required that respondent develop a plan to prohibit ex parte
communications between officers of the Appeals Office and other
IRS employees that appear to compromise the independence of the
Appeals Office.
On October 4, 2000, respondent issued Notice 99-50, 1999-2
C.B. 444, which concerned a proposed revenue procedure that, when
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011