- 52 -
statutorily charged with reviewing, see sec.
6330(d)(1).
Majority op. p. 15.
The foregoing statement is incorrect. We are no more charged
with reviewing “section 6330 hearings” than we are charged with
reviewing “Examination Division interviews”. In the lien and
levy proceeding context, we are charged with reviewing a
determination of Appeals made under section 6330(c)(3). See sec.
6330(d)(1). That determination is set forth in the notice of
determination that Appeals issues to each taxpayer who has
complied with the requirements of section 6330 (and/or section
6320). In the deficiency context, we are charged with reviewing
a notice of deficiency, see sec. 6213(a); we are not charged with
reviewing “Examination Division interviews”. The case cited by
the majority, Greenberg’s Express, Inc. v. Commissioner, 62 T.C.
324, 327 (1974), merely holds that, in reviewing a notice of
deficiency, we typically do not go behind that notice.6
6In reviewing a notice of deficiency under sec. 6213, our
standard of review is usually de novo. There are, however,
instances in which, in reviewing a notice of deficiency, our
standard of review is abuse of discretion (for example, in cases
involving a change in accounting method determined by the IRS).
Regardless of whether our standard of review in a deficiency case
is de novo or abuse of discretion, we typically do not go behind
the notice of deficiency. Greenberg’s Express, Inc. v.
Commissioner, 62 T.C. 324, 327 (1974).
In reviewing a notice of determination under sec. 6330, our
standard of review is abuse of discretion, unless the validity of
the underlying tax liability is properly placed at issue, in
(continued...)
Page: Previous 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011