- 12 -
HALPERN, J., concurring: I concur with the majority that we
have jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a section 6330(c)(3)
determination notwithstanding that no section 6330(b) hearing was
held. I write separately to lend support to the majority’s
conclusion and to offer some comments concerning our authority to
dictate to respondent the nature of the hearing required by
section 6330(b).
I. Jurisdiction
A. Meyer v. Commissioner
In Meyer v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 417 (2000), the taxpayers
had requested a section 6330(b) hearing. The Appeals officer,
considering the grounds raised by the taxpayers, did not schedule
(or offer to schedule) a conference with the taxpayers, but
proceeded to issue notices of determination (the notices) that
all administrative procedures had been met and respondent would
proceed with collection against them for the years in issue. Id.
at 418. The taxpayers appealed to this Court, and we dismissed
for lack of jurisdiction, concluding that the notices were
invalid because the Appeals officer had not provided the
taxpayers with an opportunity for a hearing “either in person or
by telephone” prior to issuing the notices.
The consequences of a dismissal on such grounds are unclear.
Section 6330(e) provides for the suspension of collections and
the statute of limitations during the pendency of a section
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011