- 12 -
If the underlying tax liability was properly at issue
in the CDP hearing and the taxpayer includes that matter in
the assignments of error in the petition for review, then
we review the Appeals officer’s determination as to that
issue de novo. See, e.g., Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C.
604 (2000); Goza v. Commissioner, supra. However, if
the underlying tax liability was not at issue in the CDP
hearing, or if the taxpayer does not raise that issue in
his or her petition for review, then we review the
determination using the abuse of discretion standard of
review. See, e.g., Sego v. Commissioner, supra at 610;
Goza v. Commissioner, supra at 182.
We described the abuse of discretion standard of
review in Robinette v. Commissioner, 123 T.C. 85, 93-94
(2004), as follows:
Under an abuse of discretion standard,
“we do not interfere unless the Commissioner’s
determination is arbitrary, capricious, clearly
unlawful, or without sound basis in fact or law.”
Ewing v. Commissioner, 122 T.C. 32, 39 (2004);
see also Woodral v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 19,
23 (1999). Review for abuse of discretion
includes “any relevant issue relating to the
unpaid tax or the proposed levy”, including
“challenges to the appropriateness of collec-
tion actions” and “offers of collection
alternatives” such as offers in compromise.
Sec. 6330(c)(2)(A). Questions about the
appropriateness of the collection action include
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011