- 17 -
Respondent contends that, under our holding in Magana, we
may not consider facts or issues that were not previously raised
by the taxpayer during the Commissioner’s consideration of the
taxpayer’s request for relief under section 6015(f). We disagree
that Magana applies here for several reasons. First, in Magana,
we said we were not deciding whether our holding therein applies
to claims for relief from joint liability under section 6015
raised in a collection proceeding under section 6330. Id. at 494
n.3. Clearly, then, our holding in Magana does not apply to
claims for relief from joint liability not brought under section
6330, e.g., brought as stand alone claims under section 6015(f).
Second, we did not say in Magana that the taxpayer would be
limited to the administrative record or that the taxpayer may not
offer evidence in the proceeding in this Court. Third, in Magana
we did not discuss the APA or the record rule. Thus, we conclude
that Magana does not govern here.
6. Our Adoption of Respondent’s Position Would Lead to
Inconsistent Procedures in Similar Cases
Adoption of respondent’s position would lead to the anomaly
of proceedings in some section 6015(f) cases on the basis of the
Commissioner’s administrative record and trials de novo in
others. Consider two examples. First, a trial de novo would be
necessary if a taxpayer petitions this Court 6 months after
filing an election for section 6015 relief and the Commissioner
has made no determination granting or denying relief. Sec.
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011