- 20 -
Id. In Nappi v. Commissioner, 58 T.C. 282, 284 (1972), we
reasoned that the APA provisions “apply to an ‘agency’ of the
Government of the United States, but specifically exclude ‘the
courts of the United States.’ * * * the United States Tax Court
is established as a court of record under article I of the
Constitution of the United States. Being a court of the United
States, it is excluded from the provisions of the * * * [APA].”
Although section 6330 postdates the APA, the APA judicial
review provisions are not applicable. The APA does not “limit or
repeal additional requirements imposed by statute or otherwise
recognized by law.” 5 U.S.C. sec. 559 (2000). The Court’s de
novo procedures for reviewing IRS functions were well established
and “recognized by law” at the time of the APA’s enactment.
Ewing v. Commissioner, supra at 52 (Thornton, J., concurring);
see also Phillips v. Commissioner, 283 U.S. 589, 598, 600 (1931);
Blair v. Oesterlein Mach. Co., 17 F.2d 663, 665 (D.C. Cir. 1927);
Barry v. Commissioner, 1 B.T.A. 156, 157 (1924). The Court’s de
novo procedures provide a stricter scope of review of the
Commissioner’s determinations than would be obtained under APA
judicial review procedures. Ewing v. Commissioner, supra at 52-
53 (Thornton, J., concurring).
The APA does not supersede specific statutory provisions for
judicial review, as it is a statute of general application. 5
U.S.C. secs. 703, 704 (2000); Ewing v. Commissioner, supra at 50
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011