- 28 -
under section 6502. The taxpayer did not raise the issue of
hardship. See id. at 490, 491.
In his petition to the Court, the taxpayer “for the first
time, raised hardship as an objection to respondent’s lien
filings (namely, petitioner’s physical illness and the resulting
cloud on title to petitioner’s residence, petitioner’s only
significant asset).” Id. At the oral argument on the
Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment, the taxpayer’s
counsel “acknowledged that * * * [the taxpayer’s] ill health was
not recent but had extended over 20 years.” Id. at 492. In
response to the Court’s questioning, the taxpayer’s counsel
“acknowledged that he had had an opportunity at the collection
hearing to raise hardship but that he had chosen not to do so.”
Id.
In the discussion section of the Opinion, under the heading
“New Issue”, we reasoned:
In this case, because petitioner’s alleged
longstanding illness and hardship were not raised as an
issue and were not otherwise brought to respondent’s
attention in connection with petitioner’s collection
hearing with respondent’s Appeals Office, petitioner
may not now raise hardship for the first time before
this Court. * * * [Id. at 493-494.]
The cases cited for support of the holding in Magana were issue
preclusion cases. See, e.g., McCoy Enters., Inc. v.
Commissioner, 58 F.3d 557, 563 (10th Cir. 1995) (Court does not
have to rule on an issue when taxpayer “cannot point to a single
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011