- 39 -
VASQUEZ, J., dissenting: I agree with Judge Foley’s dissent;
however, I write separately to emphasize certain points.
The majority’s opinion in this case is at best dicta and at
worst an advisory opinion. Rather than finding as a fact whether
or not petitioners received a hearing before an Appeals officer,
the majority avoids this important issue. If petitioners received
a hearing, then the majority’s discussion of Meyer v. Commissioner,
115 T.C. 417 (2000), is dicta. We should not be deciding the issue
of what happens if there is no hearing if these are not the facts
of this case.
As recently as August 2001, we held: “Section 6330(d)
provides for judicial review of the determination resulting from
the section 6330(b) hearing.” Watson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
2001-213 (emphasis added). In the past few months, the rule that
a taxpayer must have a section 6330 hearing prior to judicial
review has not proven to defy practical workability, related
principles of law have not so far developed as to have left the old
rule no more than a remnant of abandoned doctrine, and facts have
not so changed as to have robbed the old rule of significant
application or justification. Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505
U.S. 833, 854-855 (1992) (citations omitted).
Furthermore, stare decisis assumes increased importance when
the antecedent case involved the construction of a statute.
Brewster v. Commissioner, 607 F.2d 1369, 1373-1374 (D.C. Cir.
Page: Previous 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011