- 27 -
presented to Appeals are relevant to the determination whether an
appeals officer abused his or her discretion.” Further,
respondent argues that “judicial review of respondent’s exercise
of discretion in this case should be based solely on the
information presented to, and considered by, the appeals
officer.” We disagree with respondent’s interpretation of
Magana.
In a review for abuse of discretion of the Commissioner’s
determination under section 6330(d)(1), “generally we consider
only arguments, issues, and other matter that were raised at the
collection hearing or otherwise brought to the attention of the
Appeals Office.” Magana v. Commissioner, supra at 493 (emphasis
added). “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.” Ewing v.
Commissioner, supra at 41.
In Magana, the issue for decision on the Commissioner’s
motion for summary judgment was whether the Court “shall consider
a new issue that was not raised by the petitioner at his
collection hearing with respondent’s Appeals Office.” Magana v.
Commissioner, supra at 489 (emphasis added). In the taxpayer’s
request for a collection hearing and at the hearing, the only
issue raised was whether the period of limitations had expired
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011