- 14 -
Secs. 6213(a), 6512(b).6 In contrast, issues under section 6330
must have been raised properly when the Appeals officer made her
determination before we can review those issues in the context of
an appeal of that determination.
The benefit of encouraging taxpayers to raise liability
questions first with the Appeals officer provides further support
for the approach in the regulation. Allowing the tax liability
to be raised initially only after the case has been petitioned to
this Court would eliminate the Appeals officer’s role and permit
liability issues to be litigated without any prior consideration
by any level of respondent’s organization. Liability issues are
likely to arise under section 6330 based on requests for
reconsideration of taxes previously reported on a return. The
judicial consideration of such liabilities without some prior
review by the Commissioner would frustrate the administrative
review process created by section 6330.
This, of course, is not the first time we have addressed the
scope or our review of respondent’s collection determinations.
See Bruce v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2007-161; Bourbeau v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-117; Tabak v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 2003-4; Miller v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 582, 589 n.2
6In Greene-Thapedi v. Commissioner, 126 T.C. 1, 8-13 (2006),
we held that our jurisdiction under sec. 6330(d)(1) is more
limited than in the deficiency context and does not include the
authority to determine an overpayment or to order a refund.
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007