Administrative Law and Judicial Review of Tax Collection Decisions

i.e. prompt and cost-effective, tax collection.Despite the need to limit the courts' intrusion into tax collection, Congress has interposed additional procedural safeguards in favor of taxpayers.Judicial review of tax collection decisions is limited, 10 but it is similar to the review of discretionary decisions of other administrative agencies.As this Article demonstrates, the most efficient and equitable standards to be applied during judicial review of tax collection decisions would be those used during judicial review of similar agency decisions.11 Similarities between tax collection decisions and other agencies' decisions suggest that the wellestablished standards used to review administrative decisions should be used during the review of tax collection decisions.The standard of review applied to a case has a significant impact on the court's approach to that case.Wellestablished standards provide certainty as to both result and judicial procedure.12 Traditional standards of review, applied as commonly understood in administrative law, better promote a sound tax system than special standards of judicial review used only in tax collection cases.Despite the need to limit the courts' intrusions into tax collection, Congress has interposed additional procedural safeguards in favor of taxpayers.Consistent use of administrative law standards of judicial review, along with administrative law's substantive and procedural rules, would minimize the courts' intrusions into tax collection and ensure that taxpayers are treated consistently.However, the Tax Court, which has concurrent or exclusive jurisdiction in most taxpayer-initiated tax collection cases, 13 has concluded that administrative law is inapplicable in tax collection cases.14 Even when conducting abuse of discretion review, the Tax Court has concluded that in tax collection cases it is not required to use the rule of record review that is applied by other courts.15 Because the Internal Revenue Service prompt performance of pecuniary obligations to the government have been consistently sustained.");see also Bryan T. Camp, Tax Administration as Inquisitorial Process and the Partial Paradigm Shift in the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, 56 FLA.L. REV. 1, 20-31 (2004) [hereinafter Camp, Tax Administration as Inquisitorial Process].10. See I.R.C. § § 6015, 6320, 6330(c), 6404(e) (West Supp.2007).11. "Traditional" abuse of discretion review is the kind performed by the district courts when reviewing discretionary decisions of administrative agencies.This standard is more fully discussed in Part III.A.2, infra.12. Christopher M. Pietruszkiewicz, Reinterpreting the Role of Special Trial Judges Through Standards of Review (forthcoming 2008) (draft at 2, on file with author).13.Most decisions regarding the collection of taxes are not reviewable.I.R.C. § 7422(a) (2000).The primary means for review of tax questions is through deficiency jurisdiction in the Tax Court, I.R.C. § 6213 (2000 & Supp.IV 2004), or refund jurisdiction in the district courts and the United States Court of Federal Claims, I.R.C.