- 31 -
FOLEY, J., dissenting: I respectfully disagree with the
majority’s analysis and holding.
In order to assert jurisdiction, deny petitioners their
statutorily mandated hearing, and expedite the collection process,
the majority have bifurcated this case into two opinions, both of
which obfuscate the issues, ignore an unambiguous statute, and
avoid addressing the most critical issue: Does the exchange of
correspondence between respondent and petitioners constitute the
hearing required by section 6330(b)(1)? Prior to overruling Meyer
v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 417 (2000), and taking jurisdiction, the
majority must first answer this question. The majority did not do
so. Undaunted by the facts and the law, the majority usurp
jurisdiction over this matter and simply assert that, regardless of
whether there was a hearing, the purported determination is “valid”
and “we have jurisdiction”. Majority op. p. 11. Under the
majority holding, virtually any piece of paper entitled “Notice of
Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320
and/or 6330” confers jurisdiction on this Court and may ultimately
deprive the taxpayer of his statutory right to a hearing.
1. The Meyer Holding Is Correct
In Meyer v. Commissioner, supra, the Appeals officer did not
offer the taxpayers a hearing, yet proceeded to issue a
Page: Previous 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011