- 26 -
section 6330 determination, the taxpayer will be asking us to
review some exercise of discretion by the Appeals officer, such
as his determination that the proposed collection action balances
the need for efficient collection against the intrusiveness of
the collection action. Such a review of discretionary action
necessarily involves a question of what was before the Appeals
officer, and we determine whether the Appeals officer abused his
discretion by considering the record before him. The standard of
review in such instances may, thus, be characterized as an “abuse
of discretion” standard. Of course, we may be asked to review
whether the Appeals officer correctly applied the law, e.g.,
whether he correctly interpreted some provision of section 6015,
which provides relief from joint and several liability on joint
returns. Whether characterized as a review for abuse of discre-
tion or as a consideration “de novo” (of a question of law), we
must reject erroneous views of the law. See Cooter & Gell v.
Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 405 (1990).1 Finally, if we are
asked to review whether the Appeals officer satisfied his obliga-
tion under section 6330(c)(1) to obtain verification that all
legal and administrative requirements have been met, we are not
1 As put by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in
the context of reviewing a discretionary action taken by the
District Court for the Southern District of New York: “It is not
inconsistent with the discretion standard for an appellate court
to decline to honor a purported exercise of discretion which was
infected by an error of law.” Abrams v. Interco, Inc., 719 F.2d
23, 28 (2d Cir. 1983).
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011