Curtis B. Keene - Page 16

                                       - 16 -                                         
          Appeals Office with respect to the Commissioner’s proposed levy             
          or filing of the notice of Federal tax lien.  For example, when a           
          taxpayer’s underlying tax liability is not properly at issue in             
          the administrative hearing, we review the Appeals Office’s                  
          determination for abuse of discretion.  Lunsford v. Commissioner,           
          117 T.C. 183, 185 (2001).  Having a transcript of the                       
          administrative hearing would certainly facilitate that review.              
          Cf. Mesa Oil, Inc. v. United States, 86 AFTR 2d 2000-7312, 2001-1           
          USTC par. 50130 (D. Colo. 2000) (holding, without explicit                  
          consideration of section 7521(a)(1), that a verbatim recording of           
          a section 6330 hearing was necessary in that case to have a                 
          judicially reviewable administrative record).                               
               In addition, when reviewing for abuse of discretion, we                
          generally consider “only arguments, issues, and other matter that           
          were raised at the collection hearing or otherwise brought to the           
          attention of the Appeals Office”.  Magana v. Commissioner, 118              
          T.C. 488, 493 (2002).  Having a transcript would eliminate a                
          possible dispute between the parties concerning the scope of the            
          issues that were raised by the taxpayer in the administrative               
          hearing.  Moreover, not having a transcript may contravene the              
          intent of Congress in providing for a fair and impartial                    
          administrative hearing and may have a negative impact on this               
          Court’s review of the Appeals Office determination.                         

Page:  Previous  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011