- 29 -
of the hearing should hinge on the amount of time necessary to
discuss “relevant” issues. The advisory declares unequivocally
that: “A taxpayer is entitled to a CDP hearing even if he [or
she] will raise only frivolous or constitutional arguments
because the appeals officer must cover the statutory requirements
of sections [sic] 6330(c)(1) and (3)(C) of verification and
balancing.” (Emphasis added.) Pursuant to the legislative
mandate in section 6330(c)(1), “The appeals officer shall at the
hearing obtain verification from the Secretary that the
requirements of any applicable law or administrative procedure
have been met.” (Emphasis added.) Pursuant to the legislative
mandate of section 6330(c)(3)(C), the Appeals officer must
consider “whether any proposed collection action balances the
need for the efficient collection of taxes with the legitimate
concern of the person that any collection action be no more
intrusive than necessary.”
The fact that the majority does not give proper regard to
the Commissioner’s administrative practice is, to my mind, a
mistake. Section 6330 is a relatively new provision, and the
Commissioner is obviously looking to the Courts for guidance as
to the proper rules which he must apply to implement that
provision properly. Given the fact that he has announced that he
is now providing a CDP hearing to all taxpayers who request one,
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011