- 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 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011