Joseph W. Dorn - Page 6




                                        - 6 -                                         
          The conference report accompanying enactment of the RRA 1998,               
          which created section 6330, stated in pertinent part as follows:            
               Judicial review                                                        
               The conferees expect the appeals officer will prepare a                
               written determination addressing the issues presented                  
               by the taxpayer and considered at the hearing.  The                    
               determination of the appeals officer may be appealed to                
               the Tax Court * * *                                                    
                        *     *     *     *     *     *     *                         
               An exception to the general rule prohibiting levies                    
               during the 30-day period would apply in the case of                    
               state tax offset procedures, and in the case of                        
               jeopardy or termination assessments.                                   
          H. Conf. Rept. 105-599, at 266 (1998), 1998-3 C.B. 747, 1020.               
          Thus, Congress intended to permit taxpayers to appeal                       
          determinations made under section 6330 to this Court.  Id.                  
          Congress also intended the section 6330(a) requirement that a               
          taxpayer be given prelevy notice not to apply to a jeopardy levy            
          or levy of a State tax refund.  Id.  There is no suggestion in              
          the conference report that a taxpayer’s right to judicial review            
          under section 6330(d) is not recognized in the case of a jeopardy           
          levy.  Id. at 265-266, 1998-3 C.B. at 1019-1020.                            
          D.   Conclusion                                                             
               Courts must interpret a statute to “‘fit, if possible, all             
          parts into an harmonious whole’”.  FDA v. Brown & Williamson                
          Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 133 (2000) (quoting FTC v. Mandel              
          Bros., Inc., 359 U.S. 385, 389 (1959)).  We do not believe the              
          flush language of section 6330(f) conflicts with section 6330(d)            





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011