- 51 -
new jurisdiction to review section 6015(f) adjudications: “[A]
[s]ubsequent statute may not be held to supersede or modify * * *
chapter 7 * * * except to the extent that it does so expressly.”
Section 6015(e), of course, makes no mention of the APA (or the
appropriate standard or scope of review, for that matter). We
would therefore hold that the APA judicial review provisions
apply to section 6015(f) cases as well as deficiency cases.
C. APA Section 706(2)(A) vs. APA Section 706(2)(F)
1. The Majority Opinion
Assuming the applicability of the APA judicial review
provisions in this case, the relevant inquiry becomes whether
Congress intended (as it clearly did in the context of deficiency
proceedings) our review of section 6015(f) adjudications to fall
into the “trial de novo” category of APA section 706(2)(F). The
majority, while framing the issue in terms of the propriety of de
novo proceedings rather than the applicability of APA section
706(2)(F), concludes that “Congress intended that we provide an
opportunity for a trial de novo in making our determinations
under section 6015(f).” Majority op. p. 12. The majority bases
that conclusion on the similarity between the words “determine”
and “redetermination” appearing in sections 6015(e) and 6213(a),
respectively. Specifically, the majority reasons that: (1)
Section 6213(a), which establishes our jurisdiction over
deficiency cases, uses the term “redetermination”, and (2)
Page: Previous 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011