- 11 -
Court will review the Commissioner’s administrative determination
for abuse of discretion. Id.
In reviewing for abuse of discretion, we generally consider
“only arguments, issues, and other matter that were raised at the
collection hearing or otherwise brought to the attention of the
Appeals Office.” Magana v. Commissioner, supra at 493; Miller v.
Commissioner, 115 T.C. 582, 589 n.2 (2000), affd. per curiam 21
Fed. Appx. 160 (4th Cir. 2001); Sego v. Commissioner, supra at
612.
A. Interest Abatement
If, as part of the CDP hearing, a taxpayer makes a request
for abatement of interest, the Court has jurisdiction over the
request for abatement of interest that is the subject of the
Commissioner’s collection activities. Katz v. Commissioner, 115
T.C. 329, 340-341 (2000).
Clearly, petitioner raised the issue of interest abatement
in the petition. Respondent contends, however, that petitioner
did not raise interest abatement at the CDP hearing. Petitioner,
on the other hand, contends that he did. Therefore, we must
first decide whether petitioner properly raised interest
abatement at his CDP hearing.
Petitioner testified at trial that he discussed interest
abatement with the Appeals officer. The Appeals officer,
however, testified that there was no discussion at the CDP
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011