- 28 -
D. Constitutional Due Process
Due process does not require that the taxpayer be accorded
an opportunity for an oral hearing prior to respondent enforcing
its collection proceedings. Prior to 1998, taxpayers did not
have the right to any form of a hearing before collection actions
were taken. That pre-1998 collection process was challenged by
taxpayers on constitutional due process grounds. The Supreme
Court, however, held that respondent’s administrative lien and
levy procedures did not violate constitutional due process
standards. See Phillips v. Commissioner, 283 U.S. 589, 595
(1931), where the Supreme Court stated:
The right of the United States to collect its
internal revenue by summary administrative proceedings
has long been settled. Where, as here, adequate
opportunity is afforded for a later judicial
determination of the legal rights, summary proceedings
to secure prompt performance of pecuniary obligations
to the government have been consistently sustained.
Id. at 595 (fn. ref. omitted); see also, e.g., Tavares v. United
States, 491 F.2d 725 (9th Cir. 1974) (no requirement that
judicial hearing be held prior to levy).
However, even if due process required a hearing prior to
collection, respondent is not necessarily obligated to provide an
oral hearing. (“The fundamental requirement of due process is
the opportunity to be heard ‘at a meaningful time and in a
meaningful manner.’”) Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333
(quoting Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552 (1965)).
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011