James M. Robinette - Page 67

                                       - 67 -                                         
          sentences to the “scope of review” issue.  Specifically, the                
          Court of Appeals stated that the “record review” provisions of              
          the APA do not apply to the Tax Court.5  The Court of Appeals               
          provided the following citation in support of that statement:               
          “See 5 U.S.C. � 504(a)(1) (APA does not apply where ‘a matter               
          [is] subject to a subsequent trial of the law and the facts de              
          novo in a court’).”  APA section 554, to which the Court of                 
          Appeals presumably was referring, provides rules governing agency           
          adjudications “required by statute to be determined on the record           
          after opportunity for an agency hearing”–-i.e., formal agency               
          adjudications.  APA section 554(a)(1) simply provides that,                 
          notwithstanding the general scope of APA section 554, that                  
          section (as opposed to the entire APA) does not apply if the                
          matter is subject to a subsequent trial de novo.  In other words,           
          the agency adjudication of such a matter need not conform to the            
          “formal” procedural rules set forth in APA section 554.  As                 
          section 6330 administrative adjudications are not “required by              
          statute to be determined on the record”, it follows that APA                
          section 554, including the “de novo” exception of APA section               
          554(a)(1), is altogether inapplicable to section 6330                       
          proceedings.                                                                


               5  As noted earlier, see supra note 3, the record rule                 
          predates, and is not codified in, the APA.  See also Ewing v.               
          Commissioner, 122 T.C. at 60 n.8 and accompanying text (Halpern             
          and Holmes, JJ., dissenting).                                               





Page:  Previous  57  58  59  60  61  62  63  64  65  66  67  68  69  70  71  72  73  74  75  76  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011