Joseph D. and Wanda S. Lunsford - Page 34




                                       - 34 -                                         
          respondent cannot proceed with collection by levy against                   
          petitioners.  Sec. 6330(e)(1).                                              
               Respondent, who has the responsibility of administering the            
          tax laws, merely contends that petitioners’ hearing was conducted           
          via correspondence.  Respondent does not contend that a hearing             
          is unnecessary or optional.  Indeed, a Chief Counsel Advisory               
          issued 5 months after this case was submitted provides:                     
               a taxpayer is entitled to a CDP hearing even if he will                
               raise only frivolous or constitutional arguments because the           
               appeals officer must cover the statutory requirements of               
               sections 6330(c)(1) and (3)(C) of verification and                     
               balancing. [Chief Counsel Advisory 200123060 (June 8, 2001);           
               emphasis added.]                                                       
               Respondent recognizes that if no hearing was conducted, an             
          Appeals officer obviously could not have obtained at the hearing            
          “verification from the Secretary that the requirements of any               
          applicable law or administrative procedure have been met”, as               
          required by section 6330(c)(1), or balanced 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”, as required by section 6330(c)(3)(C).  Id.  On the              
          other hand, the majority deem the holding of a hearing                      
          unnecessary.  Majority op. pp. 11-12.                                       
               The majority position is contrary to both petitioners’ and             
          respondent’s interpretation of the statute.  Section 6330(d)(1)             
          charges us with the responsibility of reviewing, not making,                
          respondent’s determination.  Under the majority holding in                  





Page:  Previous  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011