- 15 -
Respondent asserts that it is nonsensical to permit
petitioners to challenge in a collection review proceeding the
very tax that they reported to be due (or “self-determined”) on
their original income tax return. We would not characterize an
opportunity for respondent to review the correct amount of
petitioners’ tax liability as nonsensical. As discussed above,
the controlling statutory language focuses on whether the person
had a prior opportunity to dispute the tax liability--and
petitioners have not had any such opportunity. Read in context,
and as applied in this case, section 6330(c)(2)(B) extends the
substantive and procedural protections of sections 6320 and 6330
to taxpayers who may have erred (in the Government’s favor) in
preparing and filing their tax returns. Given the complexity of
the Federal income tax laws, such taxpayer errors may well be
common. We conclude that section 6330(c)(2)(B) is fairly read as
providing a remedy to such taxpayers.
Respondent also urges that the legislative history of
section 6330(c)(2)(B) and principles of sovereign immunity
require that the provision be construed narrowly in the
Commissioner’s favor. We disagree. We see no ambiguity in the
plain language of section 6330(c)(2)(B) that would justify resort
to the legislative history for guidance in interpreting the
5(...continued)
“underlying tax liability” in sec. 6311 patently includes self-
assessed amounts.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011