- 23 -
The Treasury regulations on which the majority opinion
relies do not speak in terms of our authority or jurisdiction,
and the Commissioner by regulation cannot add to or restrict our
authority or our jurisdiction.
No appellate court or other Federal trial court has
criticized our Magana opinion, and neither party in this case
expressly asks us to overrule or to modify Magana.
The Tax Court has been given a mandate from Congress, indeed
recently an exclusive one,2 to review respondent’s collection
procedures. We have taken this mandate seriously and, where the
occasion has demanded it, either put a stop to the collection
1(...continued)
provided as follows:
The conferees expect the appeals officer will
prepare a written determination addressing the issues
presented by the taxpayer and considered at the
hearing. * * * Where the validity of the tax liability
was properly at issue in the hearing, and where the
determination with regard to the tax liability is part
of the appeal, no levy may take place during the
pendency of the appeal. The amount of the tax
liability will in such cases be reviewed by the
appropriate court on a de novo basis. Where the
validity of the tax liability is not properly part of
the appeal, the taxpayer may challenge the
determination of the appeals officer for abuse of
discretion. * * *
2 Sec. 6330(d)(1) was amended by the Pension Protection Act
of 2006, Pub. L. 109-280, sec. 855(a) and (b), 120 Stat. 1019, to
give this Court exclusive jurisdiction to hear appeals from
respondent’s Appeals Office notices of determination in
collection matters issued after Oct. 16, 2006.
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007