- 36 -
VASQUEZ, J., concurring: I concur with the majority that we
have jurisdiction to review respondent’s determination in this
case. I write separately, however, because the majority opinion
fails to address what standard of review we should apply.
Section 6330(c)(3) provides that the Commissioner’s determi-
nation shall take into consideration: The verification presented
under section 6330(c)(1), the issues raised under section
6330(c)(2), and whether the proposed collection action balances
the need for efficient collection with the collection action’s
being no more intrusive than necessary. Section 6330(c)(2)
provides that at the section 6330 hearing a taxpayer may raise
any relevant issue relating to the unpaid tax or proposed levy
including appropriate spousal defenses, challenges to the appro-
priateness of the collection actions, and offers of collection
alternatives. Sec. 6330(c)(2)(A). In appropriate circumstances,
a taxpayer may also raise challenges to the existence or amount
of the underlying tax liability. Sec. 6330(c)(2)(B).
Although the majority interprets petitioners’ bankruptcy
discharge argument as a challenge to the appropriateness of
collection action under section 6330(c)(2)(A)(ii), majority op.
p. 12 note 9, it is unclear to me how a challenge to the appro-
priateness of the collection action includes whether the bank-
ruptcy court discharged the tax liability. A challenge to the
appropriateness of the collection action appears to me to be more
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