- 24 -
process altogether or remanded the matter for further review by
respondent’s Appeals Office. By its reading of section 301.6320-
1(f)(2), Q&A-F5, Proced. & Admin. Regs., the majority opinion
effectively places on us a jurisdictional restriction (i.e., that
we have no authority to consider an issue unless the issue was
first raised during the Appeals Office collection hearing).
We must be reminded of what we said in Minahan v.
Commissioner, 88 T.C. 492, 505 (1987): “When the regulation
interpreting a statute is written by the very agency whose
‘abusive actions or overreaching’ were intended to be deterred by
that statute, we must be especially vigilant to insure that the
regulation ‘harmonizes with the plain language of the statute,
its origins, and its purpose.’”
The majority’s interpretation of the statutory provisions
and of respondent’s regulations is particularly unfortunate here
where it is clear that we would have “de novo” review over the
“matter” that the estate now seeks to raise (namely, the
underlying tax liability).
Emphasis on the word “matter” is appropriate because that is
what the statute governing our jurisdiction says. Section
6330(d)(1)(A) provides as follows:
SEC. 6330(d). Proceeding After Hearing.--
(1) Judicial review of determination.--The person
may, within 30 days of a determination under this
section, appeal such determination--
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007