- 21 -
States, 37 Fed. Cl. 448, 477 (1997) (“The standard of review for
the denial of a procedural right at the agency level, even one
that is statutory, is harmless error.” (Emphasis added.)). The
reviewing court must consider whether deviation from the
requirements of the statute would affect the interests that the
statute is designed to protect and must take into account the
general principle that public rights should not be prejudiced
because of immaterial errors on the part of public servants.
Intercargo Ins. Co. v. United States, 83 F.3d 391, 395 (Fed. Cir.
1996) (citing Brock v. Pierce County, 476 U.S. 253, 260 (1986),
in which the Court said: “We would be most reluctant to conclude
that every failure of an agency to observe a procedural
requirement voids subsequent agency action, especially when
important public rights are at stake.”).
III. Discussion
Section 6203 provides that, on request of the taxpayer, the
Secretary shall furnish the taxpayer a copy of the record of
assessment. Section 6203 does not provide any remedy for the
Secretary’s failure to comply. In United States v. James Daniel
Good Real Prop., 510 U.S. 43, 63 (1993), in connection with
agency disregard of statutorily imposed timing requirements, the
Supreme Court stated: “We have held that if a statute does not
specify a consequence for noncompliance with statutory timing
provisions, the federal courts will not in the ordinary course
impose their own coercive sanction.” The Court relied on United
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011