- 17 -
LARO, J., dissenting: I respectfully disagree with the
opinions adopted by the majority and agree with the dissenting
views of Judge Foley. I write separately in this important case
to stress the importance of an appeal to a higher court. I also
write to stress what I consider to be the legislative mandate
that taxpayers must be afforded face-to-face collection due
process (CDP) hearings upon all proper requests. The U.S.
Department of Justice, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Office
of Chief Counsel (Chief Counsel) and the IRS Office of Appeals
(Appeals) have concluded that all taxpayers possess such a right
and that this right may not be denied. See Chief Counsel
Advisory 200123060 (June 8, 2001) (the advisory). But for the
majority, no one who has considered this issue has concluded
differently.
1. Majority’s Factual Finding of an Abandonment of Issues
is Contrary to the Well-Supported Finding of the Trial Judge
The majority conclude that petitioners have abandoned all
arguments and contentions not articulated clearly in their
pleadings and trial memorandum and that petitioners’ sole
argument in this case was one rejected by the Court in Davis v.
Commissioner, 115 T.C. 35 (2000). Judge Foley has concluded
differently. As I understand Judge Foley’s opinion, at issue in
this case (exclusive of the jurisdictional issue) is whether
Appeals held the requisite CDP hearing with petitioners (the
hearing requirement). Such a conclusion by Judge Foley is
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011