- 19 -
full in the majority opinion, is an interpretative regulation
that does nothing more than state a general proposition, to wit:
A taxpayer may challenge in a collection review proceeding the
existence or amount of the tax liability set forth in a final
lien or levy notice if the taxpayer did not receive a notice of
deficiency for such liability or did not otherwise have an
opportunity to dispute such liability. The regulation largely
tracks the language of section 6330(c)(2)(B), with the exception
that the term “underlying tax liability” contained in the statute
is in the regulation replaced by the phrase “the tax liability
specified on the CDP Notice”.
Nowhere in the parties' motion or opposition or written and
oral arguments have they cited or relied upon section 301.6330-
1(e), Proced. & Admin. Regs. I suggest that the reason for the
parties' failure to cite that regulation is that the proper
disposition of respondent’s motion depends upon the Court’s
statutory construction of section 6330(c)(2)(B).
In any event, the general rule espoused in the regulation is
in no way dispositive of the specific question whether section
6330(c)(2)(B) permits a taxpayer to challenge the existence or
amount of tax that was reported due on the taxpayer’s return. It
is respondent’s position in the instant case that tax reported
due on a return and assessed by respondent under section 6201
represents a unique assessment that Congress never intended to be
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011