- 12 -
Respondent properly determined that the requirements of
applicable law or administrative procedures were met.
Petitioners did not show that there was any irregularity in the
assessment procedure that would raise a question about the
validity of the assessments.
5. Hardship
At trial, petitioners contended that respondent’s collection
activities will impose an undue hardship on them and the matter
should be remanded to respondent’s Appeals Office for further
consideration. We disagree.
Generally, this Court does not consider arguments, issues,
or other matter known to the taxpayer but not raised during the
collection hearing or otherwise brought to the attention of the
Appeals Office. Magana v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 488, 493 (2002)
(taxpayer not permitted to raise in the judicial proceeding
illness and hardship as defenses to the Commissioner’s collection
action where those matters were known to but not raised by the
taxpayer during the administrative proceeding);4 see also sec.
301.6320-1(f)(2), Q & A-F5, Proced. & Admin. Regs. Like the
taxpayers in Magana, petitioners knew about their hardship claim
4 Other cases so holding include Zapara v. Commissioner,
124 T.C. 223, 243 (2005); Kendricks v. Commissioner, 124 T.C. 69,
79 (2005); Keene v. Commissioner, 121 T.C. 8, 18 (2003);
Washington v. Commissioner, 120 T.C. 114, 123-124 (2003); Miller
v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 582, 589 n.2 (2000), affd. 21 Fed.
Appx. 160 (4th Cir. 2001).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011