- 17 -
make to Mr. Talbott. Respondent contends that this evidence is
not relevant because it is not part of the administrative record.
Petitioner contends that this evidence is relevant.
Petitioner argues that on account of the informal nature of
section 6330 hearings, as there is no formal record, it is
impossible to determine the actual statements made at the
hearing. Further, petitioner argues that the tax returns for
1995, 1996, 1997, 1999, and 2000 show his pattern and practice of
filing returns on or about October 15.
The Court reserved decision on this issue. For the
following reasons, we hold that, when reviewing for abuse of
discretion under section 6330(d), we are not limited by the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and our review is not limited
to the administrative record. The evidence in this case pertains
to issues raised at the hearing. The evidence in this case is
relevant and admissible.
B. Applicability of the APA Judicial Review Provisions to
Tax Court Proceedings Commenced Under Section 6330(d)
1. Established Practice and Procedure
Since the enactment of section 6330, the Court has applied
our traditional de novo procedures in deciding whether an Appeals
officer abused his or her discretion in determining to proceed
with collection. At trials under section 6330 when reviewing for
abuse of discretion, the Court has received into evidence
testimony and exhibits that were not included in the
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