- 26 -
our lack of authority or jurisdiction. In the context of
deficiency cases, the Court often has continued a case in order
to allow respondent to audit an NOL carryback that did not arise
until after the petition was filed.
The majority opinion could be read to raise a serious
question as to our authority or jurisdiction to remand any case
for further Appeals Office hearing on an issue that has not been
raised at the initial Appeals hearing, in spite of the fact that,
in some of our collection cases, respondent’s Appeals Office
appears to have made a determination where there was no hearing
at all. See, e.g., Lunsford v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 183
(2001).
Magana v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 488 (2002), prudently left
open the possibility that we might consider issues not raised at
Appeals because unusual situations may arise where it would make
little sense not to consider such issues.
The majority opinion, p. 13, states:
We note that our jurisdiction pursuant to section
6330(d) differs from our jurisdiction under section
6213(a).
This and other courts have been heading in this direction
for some time now--distinguishing section 6320 and section 6330
proceedings from deficiency proceedings--and it calls into
question some of our early decisions that described how sections
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007