- 31 -
The advantage of the ruling in Magana v. Commissioner, 118
T.C. 488 (2002), is that it gives us the latitude to deal with
unusual situations as they arise rather than follow a wooden rule
that may produce undesirable results.
Lastly, the statutory language of section 6330(d)(2)(B)
refers to a “change in circumstances” and makes it clear that,
certainly in the context of a levy case, a change in a taxpayer’s
circumstances may affect an Appeals Office determination and may
justify a result different from that reached in the initial
Appeals Office determination.
The facts before us in this case involve a significant
change in circumstances (i.e., a taxpayer has died and has been
replaced as the party in interest by the decedent’s estate, which
did not exist at the time of the initial Appeals Office hearing
and which therefore could not have been present and could not
have raised any issue at the hearing).
The majority’s holding that we have no authority or
jurisdiction even to consider whether the taxpayer’s death might
be covered by the exception preserved in Magana v. Commissioner,
supra at 494, for “unusual illness or hardship, or other special
circumstance” handcuffs this Court from considering and reviewing
a change in a taxpayer’s circumstance, even though the change of
circumstance has occurred after the Appeals Office hearing is
final and while the case is pending before us.
Page: Previous 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007