- 16 -
T.C. 837, 845 (1957) (testimony and evidence considered). We are
aware of no reason to depart from this longstanding practice in
making our determination under section 6015(f).
5. Magana v. Commissioner Does Not Govern This Case
In Magana v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 488 (2002), a case in
which we reviewed the Commissioner’s determination under section
6330(d)(1) that tax lien filings were appropriate, we held that,
absent special circumstances, the taxpayer could not raise before
this Court an issue he had not raised in a hearing conducted by
the Commissioner’s Appeals office under section 6330(b). Id. at
493. The issue the taxpayer first sought to raise before this
Court was that collection of tax would cause hardship to him
because of his poor health and the resulting cloud on title to
his residence, his only significant asset. Id. at 493-494. We
said that, absent special circumstances, in our review of whether
the Commissioner’s determination was an abuse of discretion under
section 6330(d),9 we consider only arguments, issues, and other
matters that were raised at the section 6330(b) hearing or
otherwise brought to the attention of the Appeals Office. Id.
9 Under sec. 6330, we review a taxpayer’s underlying tax
liability de novo. Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610
(2000); Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 181-182 (2000).
Magana v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 488, 493 (2002), involved only
issues where our review was for abuse of discretion. In Magana,
underlying tax liability was not at issue.
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011