- 18 -
WELLS, C.J., concurring: Respectfully, I write separately
to respond to the suggestion, raised by Judge Chiechi in her
opinion dissenting and concurring in part, that respondent’s
Motion for Summary Judgment should be denied on the narrow ground
that section 301.6330-1(e), Proced. & Admin. Regs., 67 Fed. Reg.
2555 (Jan. 18, 2002), is dispositive of the issue in the instant
case. The issue before us is whether section 6330(c)(2)(B)
permits a taxpayer to challenge in a lien and levy action in this
Court the existence or amount of tax that the taxpayer previously
reported due on his or her income tax return. The majority
concludes, and I believe correctly so, that the plain language of
section 6330(c)(2)(B) permits a taxpayer to raise such a
challenge.
Judge Chiechi, however, agrees with the result reached by
the majority only insofar as petitioners may challenge the
existence or amount of the tax liability specified in the “final
notice”. I believe the majority, based on its interpretation of
section 6330(c)(2)(B), correctly holds that petitioners may
challenge the entire amount of tax, penalties, and interest that
respondent assessed against them for the taxable year 2000.1
Section 301.6330-1(e), Proced. & Admin. Regs., quoted in
1 Petitioners not only challenge the $222,315.34 amount
specified in respondent’s final notice of intent to levy, but
they also contend that they overpaid their taxes in the amount of
$519,087.
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011