- 30 -
years would be inappropriate, and therefore respondent could not
proceed. In any event, a challenge to the appropriateness of
collection action under section 6330(c)(2)(A)(ii) is illustrative
of the type of “any relevant issue relating to the unpaid tax”
the taxpayer may raise under section 6330(c)(2)(A).
Judge Vasquez goes on to state in his fourth paragraph that
“Whether petitioners’ taxes have been discharged in bankruptcy
appears to be a challenge to the existence or amount of their
underlying tax liability under section 6330(c)(2)(B).”
Preliminarily, I note that whether there is an issue under
section 6330(c)(2)(B) is not crucial to resolving (1) whether we
have jurisdiction to decide whether petitioners were discharged
from their unpaid tax liabilities for 1994 and 1995 and (2) if we
do have such jurisdiction, whether they were so discharged.
Whether there is an issue under section 6330(c)(2)(B) is relevant
only for the purpose of determining whether we are deciding this
case under a de novo standard of review or an abuse-of-discretion
standard of review.
This leads to Judge Vasquez’s comments regarding the stan-
dard of review. Judge Vasquez indicates that, assuming we have
jurisdiction, it is unclear what standard of review to apply in
resolving the bankruptcy discharge issue. Although, the majority
opinion does not explicitly state what that standard is, the
opinion clearly and properly applies a de novo standard and holds
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011