- 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)? The majority sidestep, rather than address, this
issue and choose to focus exclusively on Rule 331(b) and
petitioners’ Form 12153 (Request for a Collection Due Process
Hearing), petition, trial memorandum, and failure to submit a
posttrial brief. There is nothing, however, in the majority
opinion that justifies denying petitioners their statutorily
mandated hearing.
Let us be clear. Petitioners requested a hearing.1
Respondent rejected this request and proceeded to issue a
determination.2 When this case was called for trial the
1Any reference to a request for a hearing shall be
considered a reference to a request meeting the requirements of
sec. 6330(a)(3)(B) (i.e., a timely request) unless otherwise
stated.
2References to a “determination” are not intended to imply
whether it is a determination that meets the requirements of sec.
6330(c), (d), and (e).
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