- 26 -
6330 does not contain language that can refer only to an oral
evidentiary hearing. That leaves for consideration whether
respondent’s regulations, sec. 301.6330-1T, Temporary Proced. &
Admin. Regs., 64 Fed. Reg. 3405 (Jan. 22, 1999), which fail to
accord taxpayers an oral interview, are a permissible
construction of the statute under Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v.
Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., supra. I believe that they are.
7. Chevron Analysis
Nothing in the language of section 6330 can be interpreted
as Congress’s having “directly spoken” to whether a section 6330
hearing must include an oral interview. Moreover, in Davis v.
Commissioner, 115 T.C. 35 (2000), we found that Congress intended
an informal administrative hearing, of the type that,
traditionally, had been conducted by appeals and was prescribed
by section 601.106(c), Statement of Procedural Rules. Those
procedural rules contemplate that Appeals may grant a conference,
but do not require an oral interview. Sec. 601.106(c), Statement
of Procedural Rules (“At any conference granted by the Appeals”).
Moreover, respondent’s Publication 1660 (Rev. 05-2000),
Collection Appeal Rights, specifically addresses procedures
applicable to a section 6330(b) hearing. The publication states
that, at the time a taxpayer requests a section 6330(b) hearing,
she must address all of her reasons for disagreeing with the
proposed collection action. The publication further states:
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011