- 29 -
time at which it presented the * * * issue to the Commissioner to
be ruled upon”), affg. T.C. Memo. 1992-693; Miller v.
Commissioner, 115 T.C. 582, 589 n.2 (2000) (“we would not
consider petitioner’s alternative request * * * because the
record does not establish that he raised that issue at his
Appeals Office hearing” (Emphasis added.)), affd. 21 Fed. Appx.
160 (4th Cir. 2001); Inner Office, Inc. v. United States, No.
3:00-CV-2576-L, (“Plaintiff has produced no evidence that the IRS
Hearing Officer’s determination is legally incorrect or that the
IRS Hearing Officer abused his discretion. * * * In seeking
district court review of a Notice of Determination, the taxpayer
can only ask the court to consider an issue that was raised in
the taxpayer’s * * * [section 6330] hearing.” (Emphasis added.)),
adopted on this issue 89 AFTR 2d 2002-1311, 2003-1 USTC par.
50,185 (N.D. Tex. 2002).
Unlike the taxpayer in Magana, petitioner is not raising a
new issue in his petition. At the hearing, petitioner raised the
issue of compliance with the terms of the offer-in-compromise.
Mr. Coy asked Mr. Talbott to reinstate the offer-in-compromise.
Mr. Coy brought to the attention of Mr. Talbott the fact that he
mailed petitioner’s 1998 return on October 15, 1999. Mr.
Talbott’s notes in his case activity record indicate that Mr. Coy
raised the issue and brought to his attention that Mr. Coy mailed
the return on October 15, 1999. Shortly after the hearing, Mr.
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011