- 13 -
1020. If the tax liability is not raised with the Appeals
officer, the determination would not have addressed it.
The statute and regulation make clear that in this context
we do not enjoy the same discretion as the Courts of Appeals to
consider issues raised for the first time on appeal. Compare
sec. 6330(d) and sec. 301.6320-1(f)(2), Q&A-F5, Proced. & Admin.
Regs., with, e.g., Sniado v. Bank Austria AG, 378 F.3d 210, 213
(2d Cir. 2004) (recognizing a Court of Appeals’ discretion to
entertain arguments raised for the first time on appeal).
Accordingly, we shall not review an underlying liability when
raised for the first time on appeal of a notice of
determination.5
We note that our jurisdiction pursuant to section 6330(d)
differs from our jurisdiction under section 6213(a). In
deficiency cases, taxpayers may raise any issue regarding their
tax liability for the period in question regardless of their
prior communication of such issues to the Commissioner. Our
statutory role in such cases is “for a redetermination of [a]
deficiency” and “to determine the amount of [an] overpayment”.
5We do not address here the question of whether a taxpayer,
having raised one issue with respect to his or her underlying
liability in a collection review hearing, may then raise new and
different issues with respect to the underlying liability for the
first time on appeal of respondent’s determination before this
Court. In this case, Mr. Giamelli did not raise any questions
with respect to his underlying liability and the Appeals officer
did not consider the underlying liability in making her
determination.
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007