- 27 -
hand. The notice of determination concludes that: (1) All
procedural, administrative, and statutory requirements were met;
(2) the Form 4340 satisfied the requirements of section 6203;
(3) petitioners failed to present any collection alternatives;
and (4) balancing of the taxpayer’s privacy interests and the
need for collection weighed in favor of the proposed levy.
Absent a hearing, I do not believe that the Court can properly
conclude that the Appeals officer did not abuse his discretion.
To be sure, the Appeals officer abused his discretion at least by
concluding that all statutory requirements had been met. How
could those requirements have been met when respondent never held
the statutorily required CDP hearing or performed at the
appropriate time the required verification?
The legislative history clarifies that the role of this
Court as to a proposed levy is limited to reviewing the Appeals
officer’s determination as to the propriety of a levy, as well as
assuring that the procedure requirements have been met. S. Rept.
105-174, supra at 68-69, 1998-3 C.B. at 604-605; see also H.
Conf. Rept. 105-599, supra at 266, 1998-3 C.B. at 1020 (similar
language). In contrast with the result of the majority’s
opinion, our role is not to substitute our judgment for that of
the Appeals officer as to the propriety of a levy. The conferees
provided specifically in their report that they expected that
“the appeals officer will prepare a written determination
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011