Gillum v. CIR, No. 11-1664 (8th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this CaseAppellant sought judicial review of the Commissioner's notice of determination sustaining a proposed levy to collect his delinquent income tax liabilities for 1996-2002 and a tax-lien filing for 1998 and 2000-2002 tax liabilities. Appellant also sought review of the Commissioner's denial of collection due process (CDP) hearings to his purported nominees and alter egos. Following trial, the tax court upheld the Commissioner's determinations and appellant appealed. The court agreed with the tax court that appellant was not denied a fair CDP hearing based on the IRS settlement officer's purported reliance on information that was not part of the administrative record in making his determination where the officer provided a complete administrative record to the tax court. Even assuming that the officer did rely on documents outside of the administrative record, the error was harmless. The court also held that the tax court lacked jurisdiction to review letters from an IRS revenue officer to the purported alter egos and nominees because that court's jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. 6330(d)(1) was limited to reviewing determinations by the IRS Appeals Office.
Court Description: Appeal from the United States Tax Court. Tax court did not err in finding taxpayer was not denied a fair collection due process hearing as the IRS settlement officer confirmed that the administrative record provided the tax court was complete and that the facts he relied upon in making his determinations were part of the administrative record; even if the IRS settlement officer relied on documents outside the administrative record, the error was harmless; Tax Court did not err in finding it did not have jurisdiction over taxpayer's purported alter egos and nominees as they were not parties to the proceeding. Judge Colloton, dissenting. [ April 10, 2012
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.