- 15 -
(2000), affd. 21 Fed. Appx. 160 (4th Cir. 2001). Previously, we
have left the door open to the possibility that we might consider
issues not raised in the administrative hearing. See Magana v.
Commissioner, 118 T.C. 488, 493 (2002) (“generally it would be
anomalous and improper for us to conclude that respondent's
Appeals Office abused its discretion under section 6330(c)(3) in
failing to grant relief, or in failing to consider arguments,
issues, or other matter not raised by taxpayers or not otherwise
brought to the attention of respondent's Appeals Office”
(emphasis added)). We hold today that we do not have authority
to consider section 6330(c)(2) issues that were not raised before
the Appeals Office.7
Thus, while the estate now disagrees with the income tax
returns, this has no bearing on the limited decision before this
Court. Mr. Giamelli submitted a Form 12153, Request for a
Collection Due Process Hearing, to respondent. The only issue
raised by Mr. Giamelli in the subsequent hearing with
respondent’s Appeals officer was his desire to enter into an
installment agreement to satisfy the 2001 tax liability. Mr.
Giamelli, while represented by counsel, did not challenge the
underlying liability and the Appeals officer did not consider it.
7This case does not involve an issue regarding the accuracy
or completeness of the administrative record. See Murphy v.
Commissioner, 125 T.C. 301, 311 (2005), affd. 469 F.3d 27 (1st
Cir. 2006).
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007