- 25 -
(A) to the Tax Court (and the Tax Court shall
have jurisdiction with respect to such
matter)[emphasis supplied] * * *.
Although titled “Judicial review of determination” the
statutory language in subparagraph (A) that grants our
jurisdiction uses the word “matter”, not “determination”. If
Congress intended to limit our authority or our jurisdiction to
issues raised in the Appeals Office hearing or contained in the
notice of determination, Congress certainly could have said that.
But Congress did not–-it granted us jurisdiction over the
“matter”, clearly a broader term.
Indeed, a broader interpretation is consistent with the
legislative history. The legislative history states that where
the underlying tax liability is properly at issue the reviewing
court shall proceed on a de novo basis, and the legislative
history does not preclude review de novo of the underlying tax
liability where it was not raised at the Appeals Office hearing.
Thus, as to issues to be reviewed de novo, the paragraph of the
legislative history cited in the majority opinion is inclusive,
not exclusive.
The Court’s authority or jurisdiction over issues to be
reviewed de novo should not be limited to issues raised at the
Appeals Office hearing. For example, our review of a net
operating loss (NOL) carryback that arises after a collection
Appeals Office hearing should not be precluded on the basis of
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007