- 9 -
procedure have been met; (ii) the relevant issues raised by the
taxpayer; (iii) challenges to the underlying tax liability by the
taxpayer, where permitted; and (iv) whether any proposed
collection action balances the need for the efficient collection
of taxes with the legitimate concern of the taxpayer that the
collection action be no more intrusive than necessary. Sec.
6330(c)(3).
With respect to determinations made before October 17,
2006,7 we have jurisdiction to review the Appeals Office's
determination where we have jurisdiction over the type of tax
involved in the case. Sec. 6330(d)(1)(A); see Iannone v.
Commissioner, 122 T.C. 287, 290 (2004). Generally, we may
consider only those issues that the taxpayer raised during the
section 6330 hearing. See sec. 301.6330-1(f)(2), Q&A-F5, Proced.
& Admin. Regs.; see also Magana v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 488,
493 (2002). Where the underlying tax liability is properly at
issue, we review the determination de novo. E.g., Goza v.
Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 181-182 (2000). Where the underlying
tax liability is not at issue, we review the determination for
abuse of discretion. Id. at 182. Whether an abuse of
discretion has occurred depends upon whether the exercise of
7 Pursuant to the Pension Protection Act of 2006, Pub. L.
109-280, sec. 855(a), 120 Stat. 1019, this Court has jurisdiction
with respect to all determinations in sec. 6330 proceedings,
effective for determinations made after the date which is 60 days
after the Aug. 17, 2006 date of enactment, or Oct. 16, 2006.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007