- 12 -
with the plain language of section 6330(c)(2)(B), which states
that neither the existence nor the amount of the underlying tax
liability can be challenged during the collection review process
unless the person did not receive a notice of deficiency or did
not otherwise have an earlier opportunity to dispute such tax
liability. From the Court’s perspective, section 301.6320-
1(e)(3), Q&A-E11, Proced. & Admin. Regs., presents a reasonable
and “taxpayer-friendly” approach to the collection review process
reflecting “respondent’s good-faith effort to further a
fundamental policy underlying section 6330; i.e., to provide a
taxpayer with a final opportunity for administrative review” of
his or her tax liability. Kennedy v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 255,
262 (2001). As in Kennedy, in which we held that the
Commissioner’s decision to grant the taxpayer a so-called
“equivalent hearing” did not result in a waiver by the
Commissioner of the 30-day time limit within which the taxpayer
was required to request an Appeals Office hearing, we hold in
this case that respondent’s decision to permit petitioner to
offer information at the Appeals Office hearing relevant to the
existence or amount of his underlying tax liability did not
result in a waiver by respondent of the restriction set forth in
section 6330(c)(2)(B).
4(...continued)
limitations imposed by sec. 6330(c)(2)(B) or sec. 6330(c)(4).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011