- 22 -
States v. Montalvo-Murillo, 495 U.S. 711, 717 (1990) (failure to
comply with Bail Reform Act's prompt hearing provision) for the
following proposition: “There is no presumption or general rule
that for every duty imposed upon the court or the Government and
its prosecutors there must exist some corollary punitive sanction
for departures or omissions, even if negligent.” See also Diaz
v. Dept. of the Air Force, 63 F.3d 1107, 1109 (Fed. Cir. 1995)
(“An agency’s violation of a statutory procedural requirement
does not necessarily invalidate the agency action, especially
where Congress has not expressed any consequences for such a
procedural violation.”).
In effect, section 6330(c)(3)(A) provides that, prior to
making his determination to proceed with collection, an Appeals
officer shall obtain verification that all applicable laws or
administrative procedures have been met. See sec. 6330(c)(1),
(3)(A). As Judges Foley’s and Swift’s separate opinions in this
case show, it is debatable whether section 6203 is an applicable
law. Assuming that it is, however, the majority has concluded
that petitioner was not prejudiced in any way by the delay in
providing him with the required record. The Appeals officer’s
verification that all applicable laws had been met may have been
in error; nevertheless, the majority has, in effect, concluded
that it was harmless error. Given the lack of a specific remedy
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011