- 22 -
SWIFT, J., respectfully dissenting. In the past 7-plus
years, we have dealt with new issues raised in collection cases
efficiently and summarily (generally via summary judgment), and
we have done so without limiting our authority or our
jurisdiction. The door that Magana v. Commissioner, 118 T.C.
488, 493-494 (2002), left only slightly open for issues involving
unusual situations and spousal defenses has not in any way
impeded our summary disposition post Magana of a large majority
of collection cases. Indeed, it is estimated that approximately
8 out of 10 collection cases already are disposed of by this
Court via summary proceedings.
The Magana rule that section 6330(c)(2) issues not raised
with respondent’s Appeals Office generally will not be considered
by this Court was based on a judicially crafted standard of
review (namely, abuse of discretion) and on the simple logic that
Appeals Office discretion could not have been involved (let alone
an abuse of that discretion) where an issue was not raised at the
Appeals Office collection hearing. This abuse of discretion
standard of review is not set forth in the statutory language of
section 6320 or 6330. Rather this standard of review is based on
one sentence in the legislative history.1
1 In Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 609-610 (2000), and
Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 181-182 (2000), in first
adopting the abuse of discretion standard, we relied on H. Conf.
Rept. 105-599, at 266 (1998), 1993-3 C.B. 747, 1020, which
(continued...)
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007